The
Government of the United States of America welcomes the opportunity
to report to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
on the legislative, judicial, administrative and other measures
giving effect to its undertakings under the Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, in accordance with Article
9 thereof. The form and content of this report follow the General
Guidelines adopted by the Committee in July 1993 (CERD/C/70/Rev.3).

This report has been
prepared by the U.S. Department of State with extensive assistance
from the White House, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department
of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and other
departments, agencies and entities of the United States Government
most closely concerned with the issues addressed by the Convention.
Contributions were also solicited and received from interested members
of the many non-governmental organizations and other public interest
groups active in the area of civil rights, civil liberties and human
rights in the United States. The report covers the situation in
the United States through August 2000 and constitutes the initial
report to the Committee.

The United States ratified
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
in October 1994, and the Convention entered into force for the United
States on November 20, 1994. In its instrument of ratification,
which was deposited with the Secretary General of the United Nations
pursuant to Article 17(2) of the Convention, the United States conditioned
its ratification upon several reservations, understandings and declarations.
These are set forth at Annex I and discussed at the relevant portions
of this report.

Since June 17, 1997,
the Federal government has been engaged in a major review of domestic
race issues. On that date, the President established an "Initiative
on Race" and authorized creation of a seven-member Advisory
Board to examine issues of race, racism and racial reconciliation
and to make recommendations on how to build a more united America
for the 21st Century. Executive Order No. 13050, 62 Fed. Reg. 32987
(June 17, 1997). The Advisory Board submitted its report to the
President on September 18, 1998. Based on its recommendations, the
Administration is proceeding to formulate specific proposals and
plans for action. A copy of the Initiative's final report and a
chart-book prepared for the President's Initiative by the Council
of Economic Advisers entitled "Changing America: Indicators
of Social and Economic Well Being by Race and Hispanic Origin"
(September 1998) are available at the White House web site: http//:www.whitehouse.gov.

Since 1992, the United
States has also been a party to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, some provisions of which have wider application
than those of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination. The initial U.S. Report under the Covenant,
which provides general information, was submitted to the Human Rights
Committee in July 1994 (HRI/CORE/I/Add.49 and CCPR/C/81/Add.4) http://www.state.gov.
The United States also ratified the Convention Against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment at the
same time as it ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination. The initial U.S. Report under the
Convention Against Torture was submitted to the Committee Against
Torture in September 1999. . .

Prior to ratifying
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
the United States Government undertook a careful study of the requirements
of the Convention in light of existing domestic law and policy.
That study concluded that U.S. laws, policies and government institutions
are fully consistent with the provisions of the Convention accepted
by the United States. Racial discrimination by public authorities
is prohibited throughout the United States, and the principle of
non-discrimination is central to governmental policy throughout
the country. The legal system provides strong protections against
and remedies for discrimination on the basis of race, color, ethnicity
or national origin by both public and private actors. These laws
and policies have the genuine support of the overwhelming majority
of the people of the United States, who share a common commitment
to the values of justice, equality, and respect for the individual.

The United States has
struggled to overcome the legacies of racism, ethnic intolerance
and destructive Native American policies, and has made much progress
in the past half century. Nonetheless, issues relating to race,
ethnicity and national origin continue to play a negative role in
American society. Racial discrimination persists against various
groups, despite the progress made through the enactment of major
civil rights legislation beginning in the 1860s and 1960s. The path
towards true racial equality has been uneven, and substantial barriers
must still be overcome.

Therefore, even though
U.S. law is in conformity with the obligations assumed by the United
States under the treaty, American society has not yet fully achieved
the Convention's goals. Additional steps must be taken to promote
the important principles embodied in its text. In this vein, the
United States welcomed the visit of the UN Special Rapporteur on
Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia
and Related Intolerance during the fall of 1994 and took note of
the report of his findings (E/CN.4/1995/78/Add.1, dated 16 January
1995). In November 1997, the White House convened an unprecedented
Hate Crimes Conference to formulate effective responses to the increasing
number of violent crimes motivated by racial and ethnic sentiments.
The President's Initiative on Race, the establishment of the White
House Office on the President's Initiative for One America, and
the preparation of this report constitute important parts of that
effort. Indeed, in confronting issues of race every day, the American
public is engaged in an ongoing dialogue to determine how best to
resolve racial and ethnic tensions that persist in U.S. society.

Reflecting the multi-ethnic,
multi-racial and multi-cultural nature of America today, the private
sector plays an important role in combating racism in the United
States, through activities and programs conducted by such non-governmental
groups ("NGOs") as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination
Committee, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Amnesty International,
the Anti-Defamation League, the Asian American Legal Defense and
Education Fund, B'nai Brith, the Cuban-American National Council,
Human Rights Watch, Indigenous Environmental Network, the Japanese
American Citizens League, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights,
the Lawyers' Committee on Employment Rights, the League of United
Latin-American Citizens, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and
Education Fund (MALDEF), the National Asian Pacific American Legal
Consortium, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP), the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, the
National Conference for Community and Justice, the National Council
of La Raza, the National Congress of American Indians, the National
Urban League, the Native American Rights Foundation, Na Koa Ikaika,
the Organization of Chinese Americans, the Southern Organizing Committee,
the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Southwest Network for Economic
and Environmental Justice, among many others. NGOs played a vital
role in the Civil Rights Movement, have been actively involved in
the President's Initiative on Race, and continue to be instrumental
in working towards full achievement of the purposes of this Convention.
Information about the activities of these and many other civil rights
NGOs can be obtained through the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights, a coalition of organizations dedicated to promoting civil
and human rights in the United States http://www.civilrights.org.

As a functioning, multi-racial
democracy, the United States seeks to enforce the established rights
of individuals to protection against discrimination based upon race,
color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability status,
and citizenship status in virtually every aspect of social and economic
life. Federal law prohibits discrimination in the areas of education,
employment, public accommodation, transportation, voting, and housing
and mortgage credit access, as well as in the military and in programs
receiving federal financial assistance. The Federal government has
established a wide-ranging set of enforcement procedures to administer
these laws, with the U.S. Department of Justice exercising a major
coordination and leadership role on most critical enforcement issues.
State and local governments have complementary legislation and enforcement
mechanisms to further these goals.

At both the federal
and state levels, the United States has developed a broad range
of legal and regulatory provisions and administrative systems to
protect and to promote respect for civil rights. Enforcement agencies
have worked diligently over the last three decades to improve enforcement
of these rights and to promote education, training and technical
assistance. In addition, over the years, the U.S. Congress has significantly
strengthened the enforcement provisions of some of the civil rights
statutes. The Federal government remains committed to providing
full, prompt, and effective administration of these laws.

This commitment to
eliminating racial discrimination began with the Emancipation Proclamation
(effective on January 1, 1863), which freed the slaves in the Confederacy
(the region comprised of the southern states which attempted to
secede from the Union), and with the end of the American Civil War
(1861-65). Since that time, American society has sought to create
ever more effective means to address and resolve racial and ethnic
differences without violence. Indeed, the amendments to the United
States Constitution enacted at the war's conclusion, the Thirteenth
Amendment (ending slavery), the Fourteenth Amendment (guaranteeing
equal protection of the laws and due process of law), and the Fifteenth
Amendment (guaranteeing Black [note
1] citizens the right to vote), directly addressed questions
of racial discrimination. The laws enacted in the Reconstruction
Era, immediately following the Civil War, also addressed the rights
of minorities. Unfortunately, however, these laws did not succeed
in changing attitudes born of generations of discrimination, and
through restrictive interpretation and non-application, they were
largely ineffective. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated
federal authority to protect Blacks and others from state-sponsored
discrimination. As a result, through the first half of the 20th
Century, racial discrimination and segregation was required by law
(de jure) in many of our country's southern states in such
key areas as education, housing, employment, transportation, and
public accommodations. Discrimination and segregation was a common
practice (de facto) in most other portions of the country.
In addition, though the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed that the
"right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude," many southern states
enacted laws that were seemingly neutral, but were designed and
implemented in a way to deny Black citizens the opportunity to participate
in elections.

Prior to the middle
of the 20th Century, there were no laws to address other forms of
racial discrimination, such as discriminatory provisions in U.S.
immigration law and policy. After the U.S. acquisition of California
in 1848, there arose a need for cheap labor, and Chinese immigrants
flocked to the western United States to work on the rapidly developing
railroads. Anti-Asian prejudice and the competition that Chinese
immigrants provided to American workers led to anti-Chinese riots
in San Francisco in 1877, and then to the Chinese Exclusion Act
of 1882. The Act banned all Chinese immigration for ten years, and
it was extended until 1924 when a new immigration law prohibited
all Asian immigration to the United States. Several years later,
law and policy toward Asian immigrants was again changed, extending
citizenship rights to those already in the United States and establishing
a quota for immigrants from various countries. The quota was abolished
in 1965.

With regard to Native
Americans, the United States has historically recognized Native
American tribes as self-governing political communities that pre-date
the U.S. Constitution. From 1778 until 1871, the United States entered
into numerous treaties with Indian tribes, which recognized tribal
self-government, reserved tribal lands as "permanent homes"
for Indian tribes, and pledged Federal protection for the tribes.
Yet, the United States engaged in a series of Indian wars in the
19th Century, which resulted in significant loss of life and lands
among Indian tribes. In the 1880s, over the protests of Indian leaders,
including Sitting Bull and Lone Wolf, the United States embarked
on a policy of distributing tribal community lands to individual
Indians in an attempt to "assimilate" Indians into the
agrarian culture of our Nation. This "Allotment Policy"
resulted in a loss of almost 100 million acres of Indian lands from
the 1880s until 1934, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt ended
the policy with the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act in
1934. This Act was intended to encourage Indian tribes to revitalize
tribal self-government, so that Indian tribes might use their own
lands and resources to provide a sustainable economy for their people.
This policy of respect for Native American and Alaska Native tribes
and cultures acknowledges tribal self-government and promotes tribal
economic self-sufficiency.

In 1941, Franklin D.
Roosevelt issued an Executive Order prohibiting discrimination on
the basis of race, color, creed or national origin in the war industries
or Federal government. However, the U.S. armed forces continued
to operate racially segregated combat units until 1948. During World
War II, persons of Japanese, German, and Italian ancestry suffered
blatant forms of discrimination, justified on grounds of military
necessity. Thousands of U.S. citizens, the majority of whom were
ethnically Japanese, were "relocated" to internment camps
throughout the western United States. This policy was held lawful
by the U.S. Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States,
321 U.S. 760 (1944). In recent years, however, the United States
has recognized the wrongfulness of this policy and made lump sum
payments to Japanese Americans who were detained in accordance with
this policy, or to their survivors.

Following World War
II, a combination of grass roots civic action and critical decisions
by the Executive and Judicial branches of the Federal government
set the stage for strategies for overcoming the legacy of slavery.
In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court banned the use of racially restrictive
covenants that limited the sale of housing to members of racial
or religious minorities. Shelly v. Kramer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).
In the same year, President Truman issued an Executive Order requiring
equality of treatment for all persons in the U.S. Armed Forces.
In 1954, the Supreme Court rendered its landmark decision in Brown
v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), banning
state-sponsored racial segregation in public education and creating
the foundation for the emergence of the contemporary civil rights
movements.

During the past forty
years there has been a steady stream of legislation at the federal,
state and local levels creating remedies for individuals affected
by racial discrimination. Some of the most significant pieces of
federal civil rights legislation include: the Civil Rights Act of
1964, which outlawed discrimination in public accommodations, employment,
and education; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibited voting
discrimination and thus brought Blacks from southern states into
the political process, and which continues to protect all racial
and language minorities throughout the nation from discrimination
in the political process; and the 1968 Fair Housing Act which eliminated
discrimination in housing and mortgage lending. Executive Orders
issued by Presidents through the years have supplemented this catalog
of protections by specifically requiring non-discrimination in a
vast range of public programs. Similarly, the Immigration Act of
1965 repealed restrictions on the permanent entry of Asians and
made family reunification, not race or national origin, the cornerstone
of U.S. immigration policy.

In each of the areas
covered by this Convention, the American people can point with pride
at the great strides towards equality made over the past half-century.
However, despite these enormous accomplishments, much remains to
be done to eliminate racial discrimination altogether. While the
scourge of officially-sanctioned segregation has been eliminated,
de facto segregation and persistent racial discrimination
continue to exist. The forms of discriminatory practices have changed
and adapted over time, but racial and ethnic discrimination continues
to restrict and limit equal opportunity in the United States. For
many, the true extent of contemporary racism remains clouded by
ignorance as well as differences of perception. Recent surveys indicate
that, while most Whites do not believe there is much discrimination
today in American society, most minorities see the opposite in their
life experiences.

Indeed, in recent years
the national conscience has been sharply reminded of the challenges
to eradicating racism by such notorious incidents as the 1991 beating
of Rodney King by two Los Angeles police officers; the death of
Amadou Diallo in New York; the burning of Black churches, synagogues
and mosques; the brutal murder of James Byrd, Jr., in Texas; the
shootings at a Jewish cultural center in Los Angeles, and the pattern
of discrimination revealed in civil rights litigation against the
Denny's Restaurant chain and the Adams Mark Hotel. Further, heightened
awareness and discussion of racial issues have led some to call
on Americans to reexamine our history and to consider making reparations
in some form to Blacks for past slavery. These and other issues
have prompted vigorous debate in schools, media and government over
issues of race.

No country or society
is completely free of racism, discrimination or ethnocentrism. None
can claim to have achieved complete success in the protection and
promotion of human rights, and, therefore, all should welcome open
dialogue and constructive criticism. As a society, the United States
continues to search for the best means to eliminate all forms of
racial, ethnic and religious discrimination through the mechanisms
available within a pluralistic, federal system of government.

The United States has
long been a vigorous supporter of the international campaign against
racism and racial discrimination. Indeed, the United States will
play an active role in the upcoming World Conference Against Racism,
Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in 2001.
Toward that end, the United States is engaged in a domestic preparatory
process that will invite the involvement of state and local government
officials as well as academia and civil society.

The last half-century
of progress has provided the United States with a useful perspective
from which to offer insights to other countries with diverse and
growing minority populations. By the same token, the people and
government of the United States can learn from the experiences of
others. The United States looks forward to a constructive dialogue
with the members of the Committee.

PART
I -- GENERAL

In accordance with
the Committee's guidelines, the following sections provide general
information about the land and people, the political and legal structure,
and the status of civil and human rights in the United States. Additional
background information on these subjects can be found in the Initial
Report of the United States to the Human Rights Committee under
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (HRI/CORE/I/Add.
49 and CCPR/C/81/Add.4) submitted in July 1994.

The United States of
America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number
of commonwealths, territories and possessions. The District of Columbia
-- a federal enclave -- is the seat of the national government.
The 50 states include 48 contiguous states, which span the North
American continent, and the states of Alaska and Hawaii. As reported
in the 1990 census, the United States had a land area of 9.2 million
square kilometers, a population of 249 million, and an average population
density of 27 per square kilometer.

There are several outlying
areas under U.S. jurisdiction. These include Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, and several very small islands. In 1990, the outlying
areas of the United States had a land area of 11,000 square kilometers
and a population of 3.9 million. The U.S. population living abroad
was not enumerated as part of the 1990 census; however, administrative
data from U.S. government agencies indicate that a total of 923,000
federal employees and their dependents lived abroad in 1990.

The population of the
United States increased from 249 million on April 1, 1990, to an
estimated 273 million on July 1, 1999, yielding an average annual
increase of about 1.0 percent. The population doubled from 76 million
in 1900 to 152 million in 1950 and, based on a projection of 275
million for 2000, will increase slightly more than 80 percent from
1950 to 2000.

The United States is
an increasingly diverse society. Virtually every national, racial,
ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious group in the world is
represented among its population. Federal statistics compiled by
the U.S. Census Bureau recognize four racial categories: White (a
person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe,
the Middle East, or North Africa); Black (a person having origins
in any of the Black racial groups of Africa); American Indian, Eskimo
or Aleut (a person having origins in any of the original peoples
of North and South America -- including Central America); Asian
or Pacific Islander (a person having origins in any of the original
peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent
or in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other
Pacific Islands); and two ethnic categories: Hispanic origin (a
person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American,
or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race) and not
of Hispanic origin [note
2]. Members of each of the racial categories may belong to either
of the ethnic categories.

The United States recognizes
that these racial and ethnic classifications are by no means perfect.
Indeed, the people of the U.S. struggle with issues of racial and
ethnic identity, continually re-evaluating both the question, "What
is race?" and its numerous, complex responses. Racial and ethnic
groups are comprised of individuals of substantial diversity, making
simple classifications difficult. Placing such individuals in racial
and ethnic categories can even lead to further discrimination through
perpetuating stereotypes. Nevertheless, classifications -- imperfect
as they may be -- are necessary for reasons of governance and administration,
and the U.S. Census Bureau regularly reviews its methodology to
ensure accuracy and inclusiveness.

The population of the
United States is primarily White non-Hispanic; however, due partly
to large-scale immigration in the past three decades, primarily
from Latin America and Asia, the White non-Hispanic proportion has
dropped. Between 1990 and 1999 while the White non-Hispanic population
increased from 188.3 million to 196.1 million, its percentage of
the total population dropped from 75.7 percent to 71.9 percent.

While the White non-Hispanic
population grew by 4 percent from 1990 to 1999, each of the "minority"
groups increased much more rapidly. During that period, the Asian
and Pacific Islander population increased by 46 percent (from 7.5
million to 10.9 million); the Hispanic population increased by 40
percent (from 22.4 million to 31.4 million); the American Indian,
Eskimo, and Aleut population increased by 16 percent (from 2.1 million
to 2.4 million); and the Black population increased by 14 percent
(from 30.5 million to 34.9 million) [note
3].

Based on population
projections issued in January 2000 by the U.S. Census Bureau, the
White non-Hispanic proportion of the U.S. population will have declined
to 53 percent of a projected total population of 404 million by
the year 2050. These projections indicate a Hispanic population
in 2050 of 24 percent; a Black population of 15 percent; an Asian
and Pacific Islander population of 9.3 percent; and an American
Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut population of 1.1 percent [note
4].

The results of the
1990 census showed that the distribution of the U.S. population
by urban residence and region of the country varied considerably
by race and ethnicity. Blacks and Hispanics are much more likely
to live in large urban areas than are non-Hispanic Whites. In 1990,
75 percent of the U.S. population lived in urban areas, defined
generally as all places (incorporated or unincorporated) of 2,500
or more population. The corresponding proportions were as follows:
71 percent of the total White, non-Hispanic population lived in
urban areas; 87 percent of the Black population; 56 percent of the
American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut population; 95 percent of the
Asian and Pacific Islander population; and 91 percent of the Hispanic
population. The proportions of the population residing in urbanized
areas of 1 million or more population were as follows: 38 percent
of the total population lived in such areas; 32 percent of the country's
White non-Hispanics lived in such areas; 51 percent of Blacks; 20
percent of American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts; 66 percent of
Asians and Pacific Islanders; and 61 percent of Hispanics.

Of the total population
in 1990, 20 percent lived in the Northeast, 24 percent in the Midwest,
34 percent in the South, and 21 percent in the West. However, over
one-half of the Black population (53 percent) lived in the South,
despite massive migration to other regions of the country during
the 20th century. Other minority groups were concentrated in the
West, including 48 percent of American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts;
56 percent of Asians and Pacific Islanders; and 45 percent of Hispanics.

Historically, immigration
has had a profound effect on the culture of the United States, and
immigration continues to be a driving force in the diversification
of the population today. Between 1990 and 1997, the foreign-born
population increased from 19.8 million to an estimated 25.8 million,
or from 7.9 percent to 9.7 percent of the population. This continues
an upward trend since 1970 when the foreign-born population reached
a 20th century low of 9.6 million, or 4.7 percent of the population.
In the first half of the 20th century, the proportion of the foreign-born
population peaked at 14.7 percent in 1910, and the number of foreign-born
peaked at 14.2 million in 1930.

From 1990 to 1997,
the foreign-born population increased sharply from Latin America
(8.4 million to 13.1 million) and from Asia (5.0 million to 6.8
million). During this same period, the foreign-born population from
Europe did not change significantly (4.4 million to 4.3 million).
The proportion of the foreign-born population from Europe, historically
the primary source of immigration to the United States, dropped
from 62 percent in 1970 to 23 percent in 1990 and to 17 percent
in 1997.

In 1997, 7.0 million,
or 28 percent, of the foreign-born population in the United States
was from Mexico, up from 4.3 million, or 23 percent, of the foreign-born
population in 1990. The estimated foreign-born population from Mexico
in 1997 was about equal to the estimated foreign-born population
from the other nine leading countries combined: the Philippines
(1,132,000), China (1,107,000), Cuba (913,000), Vietnam (770,000),
India (748,000), the Soviet Union prior to its division into 12
independent republics (734,000), the Dominican Republic (632,000),
El Salvador ( 607,000), and the United Kingdom (606,000).

These estimates suggest
that of the 10 leading countries of birth of the United States foreign-born
population in 1997, four are in Latin America, four are in Asia,
and two are in Europe. In 1970, the ten leading countries included
seven in Europe (Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, Poland, the Soviet
Union, Ireland, and Austria), Canada, Mexico, and Cuba.

Because of large-scale
immigration to the United States in recent decades, many U.S. residents
speak a language other than English at home and are not fluent in
English. The 1990 census revealed that among the 230 million individuals
five years of age and over, 31.8 million spoke a language other
than English at home. Among these, 17.9 million spoke English "very
well," 7.3 spoke English "well," 4.8 million spoke
English "not well," and 1.8 million spoke English "not
at all."

Of the 92 million households
enumerated in the 1990 census, 2.9 million were "linguistically
isolated." These were defined as households in which no person
14 years and over spoke only English at home or spoke a language
other than English at home and also spoke English "very well."

Of the 31.8 million
individuals who spoke a language other than English at home in 1990,
17.3 million spoke Spanish, 8.8 million spoke other Indo-European
languages, 4.5 million spoke Asian and Pacific Island languages,
and 1.2 million spoke other languages. In addition to Spanish, which
accounted for 54 percent of non-English languages, the leading languages
spoken at home by numbers of speakers were French (1,930,000), German
(1,548,000), Chinese (1,319,000), Italian (1,309,000), Tagalog (843,000),
Polish (723,000), Korean (626,000), and Vietnamese (507,000).

At the national level,
the U.S. Constitution establishes a democratic system of governance
and guarantees a republican system at the state and local level.
It establishes the will of the people as the basis of governmental
legitimacy.

The Federal government
consists of three branches: the executive, the legislative and the
judicial. The executive branch is headed by the President, who is
elected for a term of four years. The President has broad powers
to manage national affairs and the workings of the Federal government,
including the various executive departments and agencies. The President
is charged with "taking care" that the laws are faithfully
executed.

The U.S. Constitution
vests legislative powers in the Congress, which consists of the
U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. The U.S. Senate
is made up of 100 Senators; two elected from each state to six-year
terms. Senate terms are staggered so that one third of the Senators
are elected every two years. The U.S. House of Representatives is
made up of 435 members, each of whom is elected to a two-year term
from a single member congressional district. House seats are allotted
to each state on the basis of population. The third branch consists
of a system of independent federal courts headed by the Supreme
Court of the United States and including subordinate appellate and
trial courts throughout the country. Federal judges are appointed
by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. That
means that Presidential appointments to the federal bench must be
approved by a majority vote of the Senate. The power of the federal
judiciary extends to civil actions for money damages and other forms
of redress, such as injunctive relief, as well as to criminal cases
arising under federal law. The Constitution safeguards judicial
independence by providing that federal judges shall hold office
during "good behavior" -- in practice, until they die,
retire or resign.

At the state level,
this tripartite governmental structure is replicated, with each
state having its own constitution and executive, legislative, and
judicial branches. The state governor acts as head of the executive;
all states have two legislative houses (except Nebraska's, which
has only one); and most state court systems mirror the federal,
with at least three levels. One important difference is that state
judges are often elected rather than appointed by the state's chief
executive. Most states are divided into counties, and areas of population
concentration are incorporated into municipalities or other forms
of local government (cities, towns, townships, boroughs, parishes
or villages). In addition, states are divided into school and special
service districts to provide education and various other public
services (e.g., water, sewer, fire and emergency, higher education,
hospital services, transportation). The result is that literally
hundreds of governmental entities and jurisdictions exist at the
state and local levels; for the most part, the leaders of these
entities are elected, although some are appointed by others who
are elected.

A significant number
of U.S. citizens live in areas outside the 50 states, yet within
the political and legal framework of the United States. These areas
include: the District of Columbia (seat of the national government
and a federal enclave); the insular areas of American Samoa, Guam,
the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands,
the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Johnston, Midway, Palmyra and Wake
Atolls. The specific governmental framework for each is largely
determined by the area's historical relationship with the United
States.

A special relationship
exists between the U.S. government and Native Americans. While the
diversity of the indigenous North American population makes generalizations
difficult (there are more than 550 federally recognized American
Indian and Alaskan Native tribes and groups, speaking more than
150 different languages), many enjoy considerable governmental autonomy
on reservations or other Indian lands and Alaska villages. The provision
of "federal recognition" reflects the principle of government-to-government
relations founded under U.S. law and practice. Other tribal groups
have over time been assimilated into local society.

Since 1924, Native
Americans have enjoyed the protections of the U.S. Constitution
when not on their own reservations. When on their own reservations,
Native Americans are subject to Tribal law, the Indian Major Crimes
Act and the Indian Civil Rights Act which sets forth the essential
protections of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. The
protections afforded to Native Americans while on their own reservations
are consistent with U.S. Constitutional guarantees.

The U.S. government
has a similar relationship with Native Hawaiians. Since Hawaii's
admission into the Union, Congress has endeavored to protect and
improve the welfare of Native Hawaiians by establishing special
programs in the areas of health care, education, employment, and
loans; and enacting statutes to preserve Native Hawaiian culture,
language, and history. A recent case decided by the U.S. Supreme
Court, Rice v. Cayetano, 527 U.S. 1061, 120 S.Ct. 31 (1999),
has cast doubt on the Congress' authority to legislate in a manner
that grants Native Hawaiian preferences. The Court's decision in
Rice has thus prompted spirited debate over the relationship
between Native Hawaiians and the U.S. government, and indeed, the
U.S. Departments of Interior and Justice are in the process of preparing
a report on a reconciliation process between the Federal government
and Native Hawaiians initiated by Senator Daniel K. Akaka in 1999.

The U.S. Constitution
is the central instrument of government and the supreme law of the
land. Adopted in 1789, it is the world's oldest national, written
constitution still in force. Together with its twenty-seven amendments
(the first ten are known as the "Bill of Rights"), the
Constitution guarantees the essential rights and freedoms of all
individuals within the jurisdiction of the United States. State
constitutions and laws may, and sometimes do, provide stronger protections
than federal law (for example, in the area of freedom of religion
and expression), but none may fall below the basic guarantees of
the federal Constitution.

Under Article VI of
the U.S. Constitution, duly ratified treaties become part of the
"supreme law of the land" with a legal status equivalent
to enacted federal statutes. As such, they prevail over previously
enacted federal law (to the extent of any conflict) and over any
inconsistent state or local law. Since existing U.S. law -- through
constitutional and statutory protections against, and remedies for,
racial discrimination -- complies with obligations assumed by the
United States under the Convention, it was deemed unnecessary, at
the time of ratification, to propose implementing legislation.

The essential guarantees
of human rights and fundamental freedoms within the United States
are set forth in the U.S. Constitution and statutes of the United
States, as well as the constitutions and statutes of the U.S. states
and other constituent units. In practice, the enforcement of these
guarantees ultimately depends on the existence of an independent
judiciary with the power to invalidate acts of the other branches
of government that conflict with those guarantees. Maintenance of
a republican form of government with vigorous democratic traditions,
popularly elected executives and legislatures, and the deeply-rooted
legal protections of freedoms of opinion, expression, religion and
the press, all contribute to the protection of human rights against
governmental limitation and encroachment.

There is no single
statute, institution or mechanism in the United States by which
internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms
are guaranteed or enforced. Rather, domestic law provides extensive
protections through various Constitutional provisions and statutes
which typically create administrative and judicial remedies at both
the federal and state levels. Responsibility for identifying violations
and enforcing compliance is therefore shared among the various branches
at all levels of government. In practice, a major impetus for the
protection of statutory and Constitutional rights derives from individual
remedial actions, advocacy by non-governmental organizations, legislative
and federal agency monitoring and oversight, and the ameliorative
efforts of a free and energetic press.

Several parts of the
Federal government bear special responsibilities for matters directly
relevant to this Convention:

U.S. Department
of Justice. The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice
serves as the chief civil rights enforcement agency for the Federal
government, charged with the effective enforcement of federal civil
rights laws, in particular the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991,
and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Civil Rights Division also
exercises the authority given to the Attorney General under Executive
Order No. 12250 to ensure consistent and effective enforcement of
laws prohibiting, among other things, discrimination on the basis
of race, color, national origin, religion, or sex in programs and
activities receiving federal financial assistance, as well as on
the basis of disability in programs receiving federal financial
assistance and conducted by federal agencies. The Division also
enforces laws prohibiting patterns or practices of police misconduct
(42 U.S.C. sec. 14141), protecting the constitutional and federal
statutory rights of persons confined to certain institutions owned
or operated by state or local governments, such as prisons, jails,
nursing homes, and mental health facilities (the Civil Rights of
Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA)), and the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act and the Fair Housing Act (the Department of Justice shares responsibility
for administration of the latter statute with the Department of
Housing and Urban Development). Under these various statutes, the
Division may bring civil actions to enjoin acts or patterns of conduct
that violate constitutional rights. In its civil cases, the Justice
Department's responsibilities permit it to go to federal court to
seek broad remedial orders that may include compensatory damages,
civil penalties, injunctive relief and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

The Division also has
authority to prosecute criminally those who use force or threat
of force to violate a person's rights to non-discrimination (so
called "hate crimes") and state and local law enforcement
officers who engage in the use of excessive force (18 U.S.C sec.
242).

The Community Relations
Service (CRS), an independent agency within the Justice Department,
is the Federal government's "peacemaker" for community
conflicts and tensions arising from differences of race, color,
and national origin. Created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRS
is the only federal agency whose purpose is to assist state and
local units of government, private and public organizations, and
community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic
tensions, conflicts and civil disorders, and in restoring racial
stability and harmony.

Within the Department
of Justice, the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related
Unfair Employment Practices enforces prohibitions against citizenship
status discrimination in employment, national origin discrimination
by small employers, and document abuse associated with employer
sanctions.

U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC), an independent, bi-partisan agency within the executive
branch established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, has enforcement
and compliance responsibilities concerning the elimination of discrimination
based on race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age and
disability by private and public employers in all aspects of the
employment relationship.

Since its inception,
the EEOC has obtained over $2.2 billion in monetary benefits for
parties bringing discrimination charges through administrative actions,
i.e., through conciliation and settlement. In 1999 alone, the EEOC
obtained over $210 million in these actions.

U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights. While not an enforcement agency, the U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights also plays an important role in safeguarding the
rights recognized by the Convention. The Commission has a broad
mandate to monitor and report on the status of civil rights protections
in the United States. As an independent, bipartisan agency, it collects
information on discrimination or denials of equal protection of
the laws because of race, color, and national origin, evaluates
federal laws, and makes recommendations to the President and the
Congress based on the effectiveness of governmental equal opportunity
and civil rights programs.

Other federal departments
and agencies also have important enforcement responsibilities. For
example:

Within
the Department of Education, the Office for Civil Rights is
charged with administering and enforcing civil rights laws related
to education, including desegregation of the country's elementary
and secondary schools. This office gives particular attention
to discrimination against minorities in special education and
remedial courses, in math and science and advanced placement
courses, in the use of tests and assessments, and in higher
education admissions.

The
Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity within
the Department of Housing and Urban Development administers
the laws prohibiting discrimination in public and private housing
and ensures equal opportunity in all community development programs.
HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity administers
two grant programs: the Fair Housing Assistance program (which
provides financial assistance to supplement enforcement activities
at the state and local levels) and the Fair Housing Initiatives
Program (a competitive grant program to provide funding to private
fair housing groups).

The
Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Health and Human
Services administers civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination
in federally-assisted health and human services programs, with
particular emphasis on areas of managed care, quality of health
care, inter-ethnic adoption, services to limited English proficient
persons, and welfare reform.

Within
the Department of Labor, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs administers laws prohibiting discrimination and requiring
affirmative action in employment by Federal contractors and
subcontractors on the bases of race, gender, national origin
and other grounds. The Department's Civil Rights Center enforces
laws prohibiting discrimination by recipients of federal financial
assistance from the Department of Labor on the bases of race,
religion, national origin, gender, disability and other grounds.

Within
the Department of Agriculture, civil rights programs are aimed
at ensuring that all USDA customers are treated fairly and equitably.
In 1997, USDA appointed a Civil Rights Action Team to address
allegations of discrimination against minority farmers in the
United States. As a result of its investigations, the Team concluded
that minority farmers had indeed lost significant amounts of
land and potential farm income as a result of discriminatory
practices by the USDA. That same year, a major class action
lawsuit was filed against the United States and the USDA alleging
widespread discrimination against Black farmers in the United
States. As a result of the lawsuit, a consent decree has been
entered, establishing a claims mechanism through which individual
class members can resolve their complaints in an expeditious
and fair manner. To date, 11,120 Black farmers have received
over $323 million in compensation.

The
Office for Equal Opportunity within the Department of the Interior
administers laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, color,
and national origin in federally assisted and federal employment
programs. These programs ensure that state and local park, recreation,
fishing, hunting, and historic preservation programs and activities
are provided to individuals in the United States on an equal
opportunity basis regardless of race, color, or national origin.
In addition, this office enforces compliance with civil rights
laws with respect to employment in state natural resource programs
and administers civil rights laws prohibiting unlawful discrimination
against employees of, and applicants for employment with, the
Department of Interior.

Within
the Department of Defense, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Equal Opportunity is responsible for implementing and monitoring
the Department's civilian and military equal opportunity/affirmative
action plan goals and objectives.

In addition to the agencies
listed, virtually all federal agencies that provide federal financial
assistance have civil rights offices whose responsibility it is to
ensure that recipients of that assistance do not engage in unlawful
discrimination. This includes the major providers of federal assistance
such as the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health
and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor,
Transportation, and Veterans' Affairs. All twenty-eight federal providers
of federal assistance are responsible for ensuring that their recipients
do not discriminate, and the Civil Rights Division of the Justice
Department is responsible for ensuring that all Federal funding agencies
effectively and consistently enforce their non-discrimination responsibilities.

Furthermore, a number
of federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Federal Communications
Commission and the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Commerce,
Defense, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development,
Justice and Labor have established offices or points of contact
to specifically address issues affecting Native Americans, their
lands and resources. Also, many of these agencies have developed
agency-wide policies, based on the concepts of self-governance,
the federal trust responsibility, consultation and the government-to-government
relationship to guide their work with Indian tribes.

In the U.S. Congress,
special emphasis has long been given to matters involving discrimination
on the basis of race, color, national origin, and ethnicity. In
addition to the oversight functions of various standing committees
in both Houses (such as Judiciary, Indian Affairs, and Commerce,
Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies), attention is
focused through other mechanisms such as the Asian Pacific, Black,
Hispanic, Native American and Human Rights Caucuses.

In the United States,
information about human rights is readily available. As a general
matter, people are well-informed about their civil and political
rights, including the rights of equal protection, due process, and
non-discrimination. The scope, meaning and enforcement of individual
rights are openly and vigorously discussed in the media, freely
debated within the various political parties and representative
institutions, and litigated before the courts at all levels.

Information about human
rights treaties is freely and readily available to any interested
person in the United States. The constitutional requirement that
the U.S. Senate give its advice and consent to ratification of a
treaty ensures that there is a public record of its consideration,
typically on the basis of a formal transmittal by the President,
a record of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's hearing and
report to the full Senate, and the action of the Senate itself.
Moreover, the text of any treaty, whether or not the United States
is a party, can be readily obtained from any number of sources,
including the Library of Congress, public libraries, educational
institutions and non-governmental organizations.

Increasingly, over
the last few years information about human rights, civil rights
and related subjects has become available on the Internet. For example,
the Department of Justice web site http://www.usdoj.gov
includes information about the Civil Rights Division, links to all
sections of the Division that include information about settlements,
high profile cases, the laws enforced by each section, contact information
for each section, information on special topics, selected judicial
decisions, and legal briefs filed by the Division. The U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights web site http://www.usccr.gov
includes a description of the Commission's duties, function and
composition as well as information on how to file complaints and
contact the Commission. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
web site http://www.eeoc.gov includes
guidance directed to employers and employees, information about
the EEOC, enforcement statistics, and selected civil rights laws,
regulations and guidance. Individuals can also find helpful information
at the fair housing section of the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development web site http://www.hud.gov/fairhsg1.html
where individuals can file housing discrimination complaints on-line.
The Department of Interior Diversity web site http://www.doi.gov/diversity
includes information on all Department of Interior civil rights
policies and programs, special employment programs, complaint processing
procedures for employees and applicants and for individuals filing
complaints against federally-assisted state agency programs. The
Department of Interior's Office of Insular Affairs operates a web
site http://www.doi.gov/oia
that includes fact sheets detailing the Federal government's responsibilities
to and protection of the indigenous peoples of the U.S. insular
areas of the United States. A comprehensive listing of Federal government
web sites providing information about the civil rights enforcement
efforts of agencies providing federal financial assistance can be
found at the Internet site of the Justice Department Civil Rights
Division's Coordination and Review Section, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/index.htm.
Numerous other web sites, operated by U.S. government agencies as
well as by NGOs, include helpful information on civil rights, racial
discrimination and legal remedies in the United States.

In the case of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
the record of its consideration is set forth in several official
documents, including, inter alia, the Initial Message from
the President transmitting the Convention to the Senate on February
23, 1978 (Sen. Exec. Doc. 95-C); the printed record of the public
hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 11,
1994 (S. Hrg. 103-659); the Report and Recommendation of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, dated June 2, 1994 (Sen. Exec. Rep.
103-29), and the record of consideration on the floor of the Senate
(Cong. Rec. S6601, daily ed. June 8, 1994).

At the May 1994 hearing
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, representatives of
various non-governmental organizations involved in human rights,
as well as concerned academics and legal practitioners, testified
in person or submitted written comments for consideration by the
committee and for inclusion in its formal records. The Administration
was represented by the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights,
the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and
Labor, and the Legal Adviser of the Department of State. As part
of the United States' program to increase public awareness of human
rights obligations, this Report will be published and made available
to the public through the Government Printing Office and the depositary
library system, as was done with the U.S. rs on compliance with
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the
Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Copies of the Report and the
Convention will also be widely distributed within the executive
branch of the U.S. government and to federal judicial authorities,
as well as to relevant state officials, state and local bar associations,
and non-governmental human rights organizations. The Report and
Convention will also be available on the Department of State web
site at http://www.state.gov.

Although there has
been significant progress in the improvement of race relations in
the United States over the past half-century, serious obstacles
remain to be overcome. Overt discrimination is far less pervasive
than it was thirty years ago, yet more subtle forms of discrimination
against minority individuals and groups persists in American society.
In its contemporary dimensions discrimination takes a variety of
forms, some more subtle and elusive than others. Among the principal
causative factors are:

The
persistence of attitudes, policies and practices reflecting
a legacy of segregation, ignorance, stereotyping, discrimination
and disparities in opportunity and achievement.

Ineffective
use and dissemination of data on racial and ethnic issues and
information on civil rights protection. Too many persons do
not believe that racial discrimination is a common or active
form of mistreatment and are therefore less supportive of race
conscious remedial actions. Moreover, many minority groups do
not have adequate information about government-funded programs
and activities because information is not distributed in languages
they can understand in often remote areas throughout the United
States. This is particularly true for some American Indian and
Alaska Native populations.

Economic
disadvantage. In the contemporary United States, persons belonging
to minority groups are disproportionately at the bottom of the
income distribution curve. While it is inaccurate to equate
minority status with poverty, members of minority groups are
nonetheless more likely to be poor than are non-minorities.
It is also true, in the United States as elsewhere, that almost
every form of disease and disability is more prevalent among
the poor, that the poor face higher levels of unemployment,
that they achieve lower educational levels, that they are more
frequently victimized by crime, and that they tend to live in
environments (both urban and rural) which exacerbate these problems.

Persistent
discrimination in employment and labor relations, especially
in the areas of hiring, salary and compensation, but also in
tenure, training, promotion, layoff and in the work environment
generally. Over the past few years, for example, complaints
have been leveled against several major employers including
Texaco, Shoney's, General Motors, Pitney Bowes and Avis.

Continued
segregation and discrimination in housing, rental and sales
of homes, public accommodation and consumer goods. Even where
civil rights laws prohibit segregation and discrimination in
these areas, such practices continue.

Lack
of equal access to business capital and credit markets. Minorities
continue to have difficulty raising capital or securing loans
to finance a business. Without sufficient access to such financial
markets, minority entrepreneurs will continue to start and grow
businesses at a much slower rate than their White counterparts.
This problem further lessens the prospects of wealth creation
in under-served communities, thus perpetuating the cycle of
poverty that disproportionately affects minorities.

Lack
of access to technology and high technology skills. Despite
the rapid development of the Internet and other information
technologies, minorities have participated at lower rates in
the so-called "new economy" because they lack the
skills necessary to fill the numerous technology jobs created
everyday. Technology-based jobs are projected to be a large
percentage of new jobs that will be created over the next ten
years. If minorities are not trained with information technology
skills, a large number of workers will be unable to benefit
from the tremendous wealth generated by this segment of the
economy.

Lack
of educational opportunities. Largely because of the persistence
of residential segregation and so-called "White flight"
from the public school systems in many larger urban areas, minorities
often attend comparatively under-funded (and thus lower-quality)
primary and secondary schools. Thus minority children are often
less prepared to compete for slots in competitive universities
and jobs. While efforts to dismantle segregation in our nation's
schools have enjoyed some success, segregation remains a problem
both in and among our schools, especially given roll-backs in
affirmative action programs.

Discrimination
in the criminal justice system. The negative overall impact
of the criminal justice system on Blacks, Hispanics and members
of other minority groups is another barrier to our achieving
the goals of the Convention. Various studies indicate that members
of minority groups, especially Blacks and Hispanics, may be
disproportionately subject to adverse treatment throughout the
criminal justice process. High incarceration rates for minorities
have led to the political disenfranchisement of a significant
segment of the U.S. population. Moreover, many have raised concerns
that incidents of police brutality seem to target disproportionately
individuals belonging to racial or ethnic minorities.

Disadvantages
for women and children of racial minorities. Often, the consequences
of racism and racial discrimination are heightened for women
and children. Whether in the criminal justice system, education,
employment or health care, women and children suffer discrimination
disproportionately. Startlingly high incarceration rates for
minority women and children have placed them at a substantial
social, economic and political disadvantage.

Health
care. Persons belonging to minority groups tend to have less
adequate access to health insurance and health care. Historically,
ethnic and racial minorities were excluded from obtaining private
insurance, and although such discriminatory practices are now
prohibited by law, statistics continue to reflect that persons
belonging to minority groups, particularly the poor, are less
likely to have adequate health insurance than White persons.
Racial and ethnic minorities also appear to have suffered disproportionately
the effects of major epidemics like AIDS. For example, in 1999,
54 percent of new cases of HIV infection occurred among Blacks,
even though they make up less than 15 percent of the population.

Voting.
While the Voting Rights Act has made it possible for Blacks
and Hispanics to obtain an equal opportunity to elect their
candidates of choice to local, state, and federal office, the
federal courts -- since the early 1990s -- have become more
restrictive in permitting race-conscious apportionment of voting
districts. Thus, many of the gains made by minority voters in
the 1970s and 1980s have been jeopardized.

Discrimination
against immigrants. Whether legal or illegal, recent immigrants
often encounter discrimination in employment, education and
housing as a result of persistent racism and xenophobia. Some
also contend that U.S. immigration law and policy is either
implicitly or explicitly based on improper racial, ethnic and
national criteria. Language barriers have also created difficulties
of access, inter alia, to health care, education and
voting rights for some.

Specific examples of these
shortcomings include the following incidents:

On
June 8, 1998, James Byrd, Jr., a Black man, was chained to the
back of a pickup truck and dragged to his death in Jasper, Texas.
Two of the three young White men who killed James Byrd were
connected with White supremacist groups. The three men accused
of committing this crime were successfully prosecuted under
Texas law by the state of Texas, with the assistance of the
U.S. Department of Justice. Two received the death penalty;
the third was sentenced to life imprisonment.

One
of the most high-profile cases in recent years was the videotaped
beating of Rodney King by officers of the Los Angeles Police
Department. After the police officers were acquitted on state
charges, riots broke out in Los Angeles and in other cities
throughout the country. Subsequent to these acquittals, however,
two of the four officers involved were convicted on federal
charges and sentenced to thirty months in prison.

In
1999, Black guests of the Adams Mark Hotel during the Black
College Reunion in Daytona Beach, Florida were allegedly mistreated,
including being required to wear wrist bands identifying them
as guests of the hotel, while White guests did not receive such
treatment. The Department of Justice filed suit against the
hotel, and pursuant to a proposed settlement, the hotel chain
will agree, inter alia, to adopt a comprehensive plan
to ensure every hotel will be operated in a non-discriminatory
fashion.

The
Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice has
initiated several investigations into allegations of discriminatory
highway traffic stops and discriminatory stops of persons travelling
in urban areas (so-called "racial profiling") by state
and local law enforcement authorities. Its investigation of
the New Jersey state police led to a lawsuit and consent decree
emphasizing non-discrimination in policy and practices as well
as improved data collection, training, supervision and monitoring
of officers. A similar agreement was reached with the Montgomery
County, Maryland Police Department.

In
Jackson, Mississippi more than 200 Blacks were allegedly denied
home improvement loans even though they received passing scores
on credit scoring systems. Black applicants were more than three
times more likely to have their loan applications denied than
similarly situated White applicants. The United States filed
a lawsuit, which was settled in the amount of $3 million, to
be paid to Black applicants who had been denied loans.

Throughout
the United States, primary and secondary schools, colleges and
universities, and professional sports teams use depictions of
Native Americans as mascots. Native American groups have challenged
these uses on the basis that they are demeaning and offensive.

PART
II - IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIFIC ARTICLES

Since its Civil War,
the United States has worked to develop the proper configuration
of constitutional, statutory and voluntary cooperation to transform
race relations from conditions of political and economic domination
by the White, landed gentry to legal and actual parity for all
U.S. residents. Because the relevant laws derive from specific
historical and social circumstances over a lengthy period, they
have taken shape in a manner which does not directly parallel
the specific articles of the Convention. Moreover, some aspects
of this body of law, and of the national political structure,
caused the United States to condition its adherence to the Convention
on a few precisely crafted reservations, understandings and declarations.
Given these facts, it is useful to preface the discussion of the
specific articles with the following background information.

Existing U.S. Constitutional
and statutory law and practice provide strong and effective protections
against discrimination on the basis of race, color, ethnicity
or national origin in all fields of public endeavor and provide
remedies for anyone who, despite these protections, becomes a
victim of discriminatory acts or practices anywhere within the
United States or subject to its jurisdiction. Especially since
the landmark 1954 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown
v. Board of Education, the notion of racial equality has been
fundamental to the Constitutional and statutory law of the United
States.

The constitutional
protections against racial discrimination are contained in the Thirteenth,
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, all of which were ratified
in a five-year period following the conclusion of the Civil War
in 1865, and in the Fifth Amendment, which since 1954 has been construed
to forbid the Federal government from engaging in racial discrimination.

(a) Thirteenth
Amendment. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. Section
2 of the Amendment authorizes Congress to enforce the prohibition
of slavery through "appropriate legislation." The Amendment
has been interpreted broadly, not only to abolish slavery, but also
to permit Congress to eliminate the "badges and incidents of
slavery," i.e., those vestiges of custom, practice and private
action that were the legacy of slavery. Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer
Co., 392 U.S. 409, 440 (1968). As set forth below, civil rights
statutes have been enacted pursuant to this interpretation of Section
2 of the Thirteenth Amendment. The Thirteenth Amendment and legislation
implementing its commands are fully consistent with the Convention
and substantially further its goals.

(b) Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments. The part of the Fourteenth Amendment
that speaks to racial discrimination is the Equal Protection Clause,
which provides that "[n]o State shall deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection
strictures apply to the Federal government through the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S.
497 (1954).

The Fourteenth Amendment
was enacted in the period immediately after the end of the U.S.
Civil War, a time at which federalism issues were much at the forefront
of the nation's juridical consciousness. The drafters of the Fourteenth
Amendment intended that its prohibition on States' making or enforcing
"any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States," would protect the fundamental
rights of U.S. citizens, particularly civil rights, from state encroachment.

However, for almost
one hundred years after the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment,
the federal courts refused to apply its principles to state-sponsored
racial discrimination and de jure segregation. Thus, this kind of
un-equal treatment was the rule, rather than the exception, all
over the United States until the middle of the Twentieth Century.
In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court, for the first time, applied the
Fourteenth Amendment's requirements of "equal protection under
the law" against the states and ushered into U.S. law the idea
that state-sponsored segregation was antithetical to the country's
fundamental principles. See Brown v. Board of Education,
347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Since Brown,
the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment as a "direction that all persons
similarly situated should be treated alike." Cleburne v.
Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). In essence,
it precludes governments from adopting unjustifiable legal distinctions
between groups of people. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216-219
(1982). Over time, the Supreme Court has made plain that distinctions
based on race or national origin are inherently suspect, and thus
are rarely justifiable. McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184,
192 (1964). When challenged in court, such distinctions are subject
to "strict scrutiny," the most exacting standard of constitutional
review. Under strict scrutiny, a classification violates the Equal
Protection Clause unless it is necessary to promote a "compelling
state interest" and is "narrowly tailored" to achieve
that interest. Palmore v. Sidotti, 466 U.S. 429, 432 (1984).
In practice, most racial or ethnic classifications fail to satisfy
those standards. Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216, 219 n.6
(1984). Strict scrutiny applies not only to laws that specifically
categorize individuals on the basis of race or ethnicity, but also
to ostensibly neutral laws that are enforced only against certain
racial or ethnic groups. Personnel Administrator v. Feeney,
442 U.S. 256, 277 (1979) (citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118
U.S. 356 (1886)).

Even where racial or
ethnic classifications are not at issue, strict scrutiny applies
to legal distinctions that the Supreme Court has determined interfere
with the exercise of certain fundamental rights. Under this strand
of equal protection doctrine, the Supreme Court has invalidated
discriminatory measures in the areas of voting, Harper v. Virginia
State Board of Education, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), inter-state and
foreign travel, Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S.
500 (1964), and access to the judiciary, Griffin v. Illinois,
351 U.S. 12 (1956).

In short, the Equal
Protection Clause, as interpreted by the Supreme Court is consistent
with the enumerated guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention.

(c) Fifteenth Amendment. The last of
the post-Civil War era Amendments, the Fifteenth Amendment provides
that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by
the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude." This amendment, in conjunction
with the Fourteenth Amendment, is the basis of some of the federal
legislation protecting the right of individuals to vote and to participate
in the political process free from discrimination based on race
or ethnicity. For the first few years after the enactment of the
Fifteenth Amendment, Blacks in the United States exercised their
right to vote in strong numbers in the South. However, because of
a combination of forces (e.g., the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan,
often acting with the complicity of local law enforcement) and the
imposition of restrictive voting qualifications in many southern
states (such as the poll tax and literacy tests, often administered
in a discriminatory manner), Blacks in the South were once again
locked out of the electoral process. In the years between 1876 and
the mid-1960s, neither Congress nor the federal courts took action
to combat the efforts by Southern states to prevent Blacks from
participating in the political process. However, after years of
struggle, lead by the efforts of Martin Luther King, Jr. and others,
in 1964 the country ratified the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the
Constitution prohibiting the requirement of payment of a poll tax
as a qualification for voting for federal offices, and in 1965 the
U.S. Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act which made real the
Fifteenth Amendment's prohibition against discrimination in voting.
This Constitutional and statutory framework is consistent with the
voting guarantee among the rights recognized by Article 5 of the
Convention.

2.
Federal Legislation

Since the Civil
War, Congress has adopted a number of statutes designed to supplement
and expand upon the prohibitions of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth
and Fifteenth Amendments in an effort to eliminate racial discrimination
in a broad range of governmental, economic and social activity.

(a) The 1866 and 1871 Civil Rights Acts.
These post-Civil War, Reconstruction Era statutes prohibit racial
discrimination in both the civil and criminal arenas. As codified
at 42 U.S.C. sec. 1981-85, racial discrimination is prohibited
in the making and enforcement of private contracts, including
employment, education, health care and recreational facilities
(sec. 1981) and in the inheritance, purchase, sale or lease
of real and personal property (sec. 1982). They also create
a cause of action for civil damages against anyone who under
"color of law" subjects another to unlawful discrimination
(sec. 1983), as well as those who conspire to deprive individuals
of their federally secured rights (sec. 1985). Similar prohibitions
apply in the criminal context, including the prohibition against
conspiracies (public or private) to "injure, oppress, threaten
or intimidate" any person in the exercise of any Constitutional
or other federally protected right (18 U.S.C. sec. 241); and
against the willful deprivation of rights under "color
of law" (18 U.S.C. sec. 242) (used most frequently to prosecute
law enforcement officials for acts of excessive force).

With its review
of The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36,
in 1873 the U.S. Supreme Court had its first opportunity to
examine the scope of the Reconstruction amendments to the U.S.
Constitution, and thereby establish the extent of the Federal
government's authority to legislate in the area of civil rights.
In rejecting a Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment challenge
to a Louisiana statute granting a monopoly to engage in the
slaughterhouse business in New Orleans, the Court concluded
that neither the Thirteenth Amendment nor the privileges and
immunities or due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment
could be interpreted to create a prohibition against discrimination
by the States against groups of their citizens. Such a reading,
the Court held, would "radically [change] the whole theory
of the relations of the State and Federal governments to each
other and both of these governments of the people."

The Supreme Court's
opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases substantially slowed
the momentum to provide federal civil rights protections during
the Reconstruction Era. Based on the Court's reasoning, numerous
statutes enacted for the protection of the newly freed slaves
were invalidated. This judicial dismantling of Reconstruction
Era legislation was accompanied by a collapse in the political
coalition behind the Reconstruction movement. The result was
a hodge-podge of state civil rights protections, many of which
were either weak, non-existent, or rarely enforced. It was not
until the mid-twentieth century and the passage of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, when strong, comprehensive federal protection
for civil rights was established.

(b) The Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Often described as the most important civil rights legislation
in U.S. law, this statute prohibits discriminatory acts involving
public accommodation (Title II), education (Title IV), federally-funded
programs (Title VI) and employment (Title VII). This legislation
has been repeatedly amended in the years since 1964. See, e.g.,
Pub.L. 102-166 (1991) (establishing the burden of proof in Title
VII disparate impact cases, prohibiting the discriminatory use
of test scores, refining the definition of an unlawful business
practice, and extending coverage to U.S.-controlled foreign
corporations); Pub.L. 92-261, sec. 2(2) (1972) (extending the
statute to state and local government employers, eliminating
the exemption for the employment of individuals engaged in the
educational activities of non-religious educational institutions,
and extending its coverage to applicants for employment or membership
in organizations); see also Glass Ceiling Act, Pub.L.102-166,
Title II (1991) (establishing a commission to study issues related
to the under-representation of women and minorities in management
and decision-making positions in business).

(i) Title
II of the Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000a, prohibits discrimination
on the basis of "race, color, religion or national origin"
in places of "public accommodation," which are defined
to include establishments affecting commerce that are hotels,
motels and other lodging, restaurants and other places serving
food, theaters, concert halls, sports stadiums and other places
of entertainment or exhibition and gasoline stations.

(ii) Title
IV, codified at 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000c et seq., provides
for the orderly desegregation of public schools and for non-discriminatory
admissions to public colleges and universities.

(iii) Title
VI, codified at 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000d et seq., provides that
no person in the United States shall be excluded from participation
in, or denied the benefits of, any federally-funded or assisted
program or activity on account of race, color or national origin.
This provision has had a particularly salutary effect in the
continuing efforts to eliminate de jure school and housing
segregation.

(iv) Title
VII, codified at 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e et seq., is the
primary federal statute addressing discrimination in employment.
Subject to certain exceptions, it prohibits discrimination on
the basis of, inter alia, race, color and national origin
in hiring, compensation, conditions of employment and dismissals
by employers (defined as those that employ more than fifteen
employees), labor organizations and employment agencies affecting
commerce. In addition, employers are prohibited from engaging
in intentional discrimination on the basis of race by 42 U.S.C.
section 1981. Complaints under Title VII are initially filed
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Those complaints
filed against state or local government employers can be referred
to the Department of Justice for enforcement in federal court.
In 1991, Congress amended Title VII to provide additional remedies
for intentional discrimination in the workplace.

(c) The Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Among the most fundamental rights in any democratic system is
the right to participate freely in the government of one's country
without discrimination on the basis of race, color or national
origin. In the United States, the Fifteenth Amendment, ratified
in 1870, prohibits denial or abridgement of the right to vote
on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.
While in the northern, non-slave-holding states, Blacks frequently
(but not uniformly) were already enfranchised, the Fifteenth
Amendment and legislation adopted at that time to enforce it
did not lead to the permanent enfranchisement of Blacks in the
former slave-holding states. In response to the Fifteenth Amendment,
many states, through a combination of physical and economic
coercion and through the use of state legal systems, almost
totally excluded Blacks from the political process in several
southern states by the end of the 19th century. Through the
work of civil rights activists such as Martin Luther King, Jr.,
the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and others, a nation-wide political
movement created a sea-change in the country by the middle of
the 20th Century.

As a result, through
a series of lawsuits decided by the Supreme Court of the United
States, Civil Rights Acts enacted by the United States Congress
in 1957, 1960, and 1964, and especially the Voting Rights Act
of 1965, Blacks and other racial and ethnic minorities have
gained the right to vote free from racial discrimination in
every part of the United States.

The Voting Rights
Act has been extended or strengthened by Congress on several
occasions (1970, 1975, 1982, and 1992) and has been interpreted
or amended to protect all racial or ethnic minority groups,
including language minorities. The Act authorizes the United
States Attorney General and private parties to bring lawsuits
in federal court to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment to ensure
that minority voters are afforded an equal opportunity to elect
their candidates of choice to state, local, and federal office.
The Act also bans the use of literacy tests and other tests
and devices which had been applied in a discriminatory manner
to disqualify eligible minority applicants from being able to
register to vote. In addition to general provisions banning
discriminatory practices that apply to the entire nation, the
Act has specialized mechanisms that apply to areas of the country
with the most severe history of discrimination against Blacks.
This part of the Act requires federal pre-approval for any proposed
changes in voting laws and practices to prevent the implementation
of new discriminatory laws and practices; authorization of federal
observers to monitor elections to assure that minority voters
are permitted to vote free from discrimination or intimidation,
and that their votes are actually counted; and the provision
of bilingual voting information and assistance is required in
certain areas of the country.

(d) The Fair Housing Act. This statute,
originally enacted as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of
1968 and amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988,
is codified at 42 U.S.C. sec. 3601-19. It prohibits discrimination
on the grounds, inter alia, of race, color, religion,
or national origin in the sale or rental of housing as well
as in other real estate related transactions (i.e., lending,
insurance, and appraisal practices) and brokerage services.
Exceptions are provided for private clubs, single family dwellings
and owner-occupied boarding houses with no more than three other
family units, except when the owner uses the services of real
estate brokers or others. It also includes a criminal provision,
42 U.S.C. sec. 3631, which makes it a federal crime for any
person to use force or the threat of force willfully to injure,
intimidate, or interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate
or interfere with any person because of his or her race, color,
religion, sex or handicap, and because he or she is exercising
federally protected housing rights. This statute is used, for
example, to prosecute cross-burnings and other racially-motivated
threats and violence directed at people in their homes.

(e) Civil Rights Act of 1968. One
of the statutes promulgated under this Act was 18 U.S.C. sec.
245, a criminal statute which, inter alia, prohibits
any person from using force or willful threats to injure, intimidate,
or interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere
with any person because of his or her race, color, religion
or national origin, and because he or she is engaging in certain
federally protected rights, including rights related to education,
employment, and the use of public facilities and establishments
which serve the public.

(f) Protection of Religious Property.
Passed in 1988, and amended in 1996, 18 U.S.C. section 247 makes
it a crime to deface, damage or destroy religious property because
of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual
associated with that property. This statute has been used, for
example, to prosecute racially-motivated church arson, and the
painting of anti-Semitic graffiti on and within a Jewish synagogue.

(g) American Indian Religious Freedom Act,
42 U.S.C. sec. 1996. Enacted in 1978, then amended in 1996,
this Act resolves that it shall be the policy of the United
States to protect and preserve for the American Indian, Eskimo,
Aleut and Native Hawaiian the inherent right to freedom to believe,
express and exercise their traditional religions, including,
inter alia, access to religious sites, use and possession
of sacred objects and freedom to worship through ceremonial
and traditional rites. Federal agencies are directed to evaluate
their policies and procedures to determine if changes are needed
to ensure that such rights and freedoms are not disrupted by
agency practices. The courts have interpreted this act to require
that the views of Indian leaders be obtained and considered
when a proposed land use might conflict with traditional Indian
religious beliefs or practices, and that unnecessary interference
with Indian religious practices be avoided during project implementation.

(h) Protection
of Traditional Rights in American Samoa, 48 U.S.C.
sec. 1661(a). In 1929 the Congress accepted and ratified
the cessions of Tutuila and Aunu'u (1900) and Manu'a (1904)
by the islands' traditional leaders and thereby confirmed that
the Federal government would "respect and protect the individual
rights of all people dwelling in Tutuila and Aunu'u to their
lands and other property" and "no[t] discriminat[e]
in the suffrages and political privileges between the present
residents of said Islands [Manu'a] and citizens of the United
States dwelling therein, and also [recognize] . . . the rights
of . . . all people concerning their property according to their
customs."

(i) Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C.
sec. 1691 et seq. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act makes it
unlawful for any creditor to discriminate in a credit transaction
on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex,
marital status, age, or source of income (e.g., public benefits).
Enforcement has focused on all aspects of the lending process
from marketing to underwriting and pricing. For example, in
1997 the U.S. Department of Justice filed and settled a case
alleging that Albank of New York engaged in so-called "redlining"
by refusing to take mortgage loans from areas with significant
minority populations. The settlement included an agreement by
the bank to provide $55 million dollars at below market rates
to previously redlined areas. Cases have been brought on behalf
of Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, women and the elderly
both in major metropolitan areas such as Boston and Los Angeles
and in less populated areas such as Mississippi and South Dakota.

(j) Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 includes a provision, 42 U.S.C. sec. 14141, that
authorizes the Department of Justice to file suit to enjoin
a pattern or practice of unconstitutional or unlawful conduct
by a state or local law enforcement agency. Misconduct that
may be addressed includes discriminatory police practices, use
of excessive force, false arrests, and improper searches and
seizures.

(k) Anti-discrimination Provision of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. sec.
1324b. This law was enacted in 1986 in response to concerns
that employers, faced with sanctions against knowingly hiring
unauthorized immigrants, would refuse to hire people they perceived
to be foreign based on their accent or appearance. The law prohibits
citizenship status and national origin discrimination with respect
to hiring, firing, or referral or recruitment for a fee. The
law also prohibits unfair documentary practices with respect
to employment eligibility verification. All U.S. citizens and
nationals and work-authorized immigrants are protected from
national origin discrimination and unfair documentary practices.
U.S. citizens and nationals, permanent residents, asylees, refugees,
and temporary residents are protected from citizenship status
discrimination

(l) Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970,
16 U.S.C. sec. 1704. This Act requires assurances of nondiscrimination
in employment within the State Youth Conservation Corps in order
for states to receive funds to cover Youth Conservation Corps
projects.

(m) Emergency Insured Student Loan Act of
1969, 20 U.S.C. sec. 1078(c)(2)(F). This act requires
adequate assurances that the loan guaranty agency will not engage
in any pattern or practice which results in a denial of a borrower's
access to loans under this part because of the borrower's race,
sex, color, religion, national origin, age, disabled status,
income, attendance at a particular eligible institution within
the area served by the guaranty agency, length of the borrower's
educational program, or the borrower's academic year in school.

(n) Higher Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C.
sec. 1011 et seq. This law provides funds to higher
education institutions and prohibits the schools from using
these funds in programs or contracts with discriminatory provisions
barring students on the basis of race, national origin, sex,
or religion. Through subsequent amendments, particularly those
made in 1992 and in 1998, the Act has added programs which provide
insurance assistance to historically Black colleges and universities,
Hispanic serving institutions, and tribal colleges, and which
encourage youth from disadvantaged backgrounds to gain early
awareness and readiness for post-secondary education, e.g. through
the "Gear-Up" program, which funds partnerships of
high-poverty middle schools, colleges and universities, community
organizations, and businesses.

(p) The Equal Educational Opportunities
Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. sec. 1703. This law requires
the provision of equal educational opportunities in all public
schools, whether or not they are federally funded, and it prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, color,
or sex; including the failure to take appropriate action to
overcome language barriers that impede equal participation in
instructional programs.

(q) Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965, 20 U.S.C. sec. 6301 et seq. This Act
provides federal aid to elementary and secondary schools, reinforcing
the civil rights protections included in the 1964 Civil Rights
Act. In particular, it provides for services to meet the special
education needs of educationally deprived children, especially
those children from low-income families.

(r) Federal
Family Education Loan Program,
20 U.S.C. sec. 1087-1(e)(3). This Act provides special allowance
payments for loans financed by proceeds of tax-exempt obligations.
It prohibits denial of a borrower's access to loans under this
part because of the borrower's race, sex, color, religion, national
origin, age, handicapped status, income, attendance at a particular
eligible institution, length of the borrower's educational program,
or the borrower's academic year in school.

(s) Improving
America's Schools Act of 1994, 20 U.S.C. sec. 7502(b)(4).
This Act applies to any federally assisted education program.
It prohibits exclusion of students on the bases of surname or
language-minority status. This Act also made far-reaching changes
in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to enable schools
to provide opportunities for children to meet challenging State
content and performance standards.

(t) Alaska
Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. sec. 719o.
This Act provides funding for delivery of Alaska natural gas.
It requires implementation of affirmative action policies to
prevent discrimination on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex or religion in the issuance of certificates, permits,
rights-of-way, leases, or other authorizations under this Act.

(u) Federal
Energy Administration Act of 1974, 15 U.S.C. sec. 775.
This Act also addresses funding for the delivery of Alaska natural
gas. It requires implementation of affirmative action policies
to prevent discrimination in programs given certificates, permits,
right-of-ways, lease, or other authorizations under this Act.
It prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin,
sex, or religion.

(w) Energy
Conservation in Existing Buildings Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C.
sec. 6870. This Act provides weatherization assistance for
low-income persons. It prohibits discrimination based on race,
color, national origin, sex, or any other factor specified in
any federal law prohibiting discrimination.

(x) Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 31 U.S.C.
sec. 6711. This Act provides funding for crime prevention
through education treatment, substance abuse or job programs.
It prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin,
sex, religion, age, and disability.

(y) Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974 (Title I), 42 U.S.C.
sec. 5309. This Act authorizes the Community Development
Block Grant. It prohibits discrimination based on race, color,
national origin, sex, religion, age, and disability.

(aa) Mining
and Mineral Resources Institutes Act of 1984, 30 U.S.C. sec.
1222. This Act sets out recommendations regarding funding
for mining and mineral resources research institutes. The Act
stipulates that funding is to be provided without regard to,
or on the basis of, race, sex or religion.

(bb) Trans-Alaska
Pipeline Authorization Act of 1973, 43 U.S.C. sec. 1651(note).
This Act provided funds for the construction of the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline. It requires the implementation of affirmative action
policies to prevent discrimination on the bases of race, color,
national origin, sex, and religion in the issuance of certificates,
permits, rights-of-way, leases or other authorizations under
the Act.

(cc) Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. sec. 1747(10).
This Act provides loans to states to relieve social/economic
impacts from certain mining. It prohibits discrimination on
the bases of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.

(ee) 48
U.S.C. sec. 1708. This section addresses conveyances of
certain submerged land of U.S. territories and prohibits discrimination
on the bases of race, color, national origin, sex, religion
and ancestry in making such conveyances.

(ff) Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. sec. 3789d.
This Act provides funding for state and local justice system
improvements. It prohibits discrimination on the bases of race,
color, national origin, sex, and religion.

(kk) Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, 22 U.S.C. sec. 2314(g). This Act
provides for foreign assistance. It prohibits discrimination
on the basis of race, national origin, sex, or religion against
U.S. persons participating in the furnishing of this assistance.

(ll) Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1968, 23 U.S.C. sec. 140. This Act provides
employment assurances for the receipt of funds for the federal-aid
highway systems. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of
race, color, national origin, sex, or religion.

(nn) Airport
and Airway Improvement Act, 49 U.S.C. sec. 47123. This Act
provides funds for airport and airway improvements and prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin,
sex, or religion.

(oo) Domestic
Volunteer Service/Volunteers in Service to America Act of 1973,
42 U.S.C. sec. 5057. This Act provides funds to foster and
expand voluntary citizen service in communities throughout the
nation in activities to help the disadvantaged. It prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin,
sex, religion, age, political affiliation, or disability.

(pp) National
and Community Service Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. sec. 12635.
This Act provides federal assistance for national service as
job or education training and prohibits discrimination on the
basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability,
or political affiliation.

(qq) General
Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. sec. 1228a. This statute
directs the Secretary of Education to require an applicant for
assistance under an applicable program administered by the Department
to describe in the application the steps the applicant proposes
to take to ensure equitable access to, and equitable participation
in, the project or activity to be conducted with such assistance
by addressing the special needs of students, teachers, and other
program beneficiaries in order to overcome barriers to equitable
participation, including barriers based on gender, race, color,
national origin, disability and age.

3.
Federal Action and Racial Discrimination

The
President has executive authority to direct the activities of
federal agencies in furtherance of the Constitution and laws
of the United States. In exercise of this authority, the President
has issued executive orders that prohibit discrimination in
federal programs and that encourage diversity in the federal
workplace to the extent that such actions are consistent with
federal law. For example:

Executive
Order 11246, signed on September 24, 1965, prohibits
federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating
in employment, and requires that they undertake affirmative
action to ensure equal employment opportunity without regard
to race, color, sex, religion or national origin. Generally,
all contractors and subcontractors holding non-exempt federal
and federally assisted contracts and subcontracts worth
more than $10,000 must comply with this Order.

To
ensure that federal funding agencies effectively and consistently
enforce their responsibilities for ensuring their recipients
do not discriminate, in 1980 President Carter issued
Executive Order 12250. Among other things, this order
delegates to the Attorney General the President's authority
to approve regulations under Title VI of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race,
color, and national origin by recipients of federal financial
assistance). In addition, the Executive Order charges the
Attorney General with leadership to provide for the consistent
and effective implementation of various laws prohibiting
discriminatory practices in federal programs and programs
receiving federal financial assistance.

On
January 17, 1994, in Executive Order
12892, President Clinton introduced new Fair Housing
initiatives in federal programs to ensure that all federal
policies and programs across all agencies support the fair
housing and equal opportunity goals of the Fair Housing
Act. The purpose of this order was to remove all barriers
to housing for lower income and minority Americans. The
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Attorney
General, the officials with primary responsibility for the
enforcement of federal fair housing laws, were assigned
the task of developing and coordinating measures to carry
out the purposes of the Order. In addition, the Order established
an advisory council entitled the "President's Fair
Housing and Urban Development Council" chaired by the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to review the
design and delivery of federal programs and activities and
ensure that they support a coordinated strategy to affirmatively
further fair housing.

On
February 11, 1994, in Executive Order
12898, President Clinton directed every federal agency
to identify and consider adverse human health or environmental
effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority
and low-income populations. The Order also established a
working group on environmental justice comprising the heads
of the major executive agencies. The working group's task
was to coordinate, provide guidance and serve as a clearinghouse
for the Federal agencies on their environmental justice
strategies.

On
May 24, 1996, Executive Order 13007
was issued, calling upon federal agencies to accommodate
access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian
religious practitioners and to avoid adversely affecting
the physical integrity of such sacred sites.

Executive
Order 13021, issued on October 21, 1996, calls upon
the Federal government to ensure that tribal colleges and
universities are more fully recognized as accredited institutions,
have access to the opportunities afforded other institutions
and have federal resources committed to them on a continuing
basis. The order also, among other objectives, calls on
the Federal government to promote access to high quality
education opportunity for economically disadvantaged students
and the preservation and revitalization of American Indian
and Alaska Native languages and cultural traditions.

On
August 6, 1998, President Clinton issued
Executive Order 13096 on American Indian and Alaska
Native Education affirming the political and legal relationship
of the Federal government with tribal governments and recognizing
the educational and culturally related academic needs of
American Indians and Alaska Native students. This Order
established six goals, consistent with tribal traditions
and cultures, for improving educational achievement and
academic progress for American Indians and Alaska Natives.
In order to achieve these goals, the Order also established,
among other initiatives, an interagency task force, which
was tasked with developing a comprehensive interagency plan,
research agenda and policy for improving American Indian
and Alaska Native educational achievement and an interagency
resource guide on federal education-related programs.

Executive
Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments, was issued on May 14, 1998, requiring
federal agencies to consult with tribes when developing
regulatory practices, policies, or regulations that significantly
affect tribal interests. Among other things, consultation
with tribes helps to ensure that federal policymakers account
for the often unique interests and perspectives of tribes
and their members. By doing so, it will help avoid developing
policies that might discriminate against Native American
interests. In addition, by affirming the Federal government's
commitment to Indian tribal rights, including treaty hunting
and fishing rights, the Executive Order serves an educational
function that may, in turn, lessen racial tensions that
sometimes confront tribal members as they seek to exercise
those rights.

Executive
Order 13125 was signed by President Clinton on June
7, 1999 to improve the quality of life of Asian Americans
and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) through increased participation
in federal programs where they are under-served. The Executive
Order establishes the President's Advisory Commission on
AAPIs and the White House Initiative on AAPIs. It mandates
the development of an integrated federal plan to respond
to the needs of this population.

On
June 9, 1999, President Clinton issued an
Executive Memorandum requiring that the Departments
of Justice, Treasury and Interior design and implement systems
for collecting data by race, ethnicity, and gender relating
to certain actions taken by law enforcement agents employed
by these Departments. The purpose of this data collection
effort is to allow the Federal government to determine whether
any of its law enforcement agencies is engaged in so-called
"racial profiling."

Federal agencies also
have authority to adopt regulations to implement the programs
they are charged with administering. In many cases, these regulations
include provisions prohibiting discrimination by government agents
and individuals and entities who receive services from the agency.
For example, all federal assistance agencies have regulations
prohibiting race discrimination by recipients of their assistance.
A comprehensive listing of these regulations can be found on the
web site of the Coordination and Review Section of the Civil Rights
Division found at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor.

4.
State Anti-Discrimination Measures

Most
states, and many large cities, have adopted their own statutory
and administrative schemes for protecting individuals from discrimination
in fields actively regulated by state and local governments.
For example, state constitutions and statutes typically protect
individuals from discrimination in housing, employment, public
accommodations, government contracting, credit transactions
and education. As a result, a particular discriminatory act
might well violate federal, state and local law -- each having
its own sanctions. States may also provide protections which
differ from or exceed the minimum requirements of federal law.
Where such protections exist, state or municipal law also provides
judicial or administrative remedies for victims of discrimination.

This re-enactment
of similar or expanded protections at the state and local level
serves several important purposes. First, this process involves
a broad range of legislators at all levels of government taking
positive steps toward the elimination of racial discrimination.
This is important both for the specific legislative action that
results, and for the increased local participation in the effort
to eradicate race-based inequalities and racial intolerance.
Thus, the effort to eliminate racial discrimination occurs at
the most basic political level. Second, the process usually
involves the creation of a state or local agency for the administrative
enforcement of the protections involved. This frequently involves
the appointment of a local commission with the power to investigate
complaints and to enforce the legislation in question. Accordingly,
enforcement offices are made available at locations closer to,
and more accessible by, the affected individuals. Since local
officials may more fully understand underlying issues and complexities
in individual cases, adjudication of cases by them may yield
better public understanding.

For example, the
Florida Commission on Human Relations was established in 1969,
with the enactment of the Florida Human Rights Act, for the
purpose of enforcing Florida's anti-discrimination laws. The
Commission is both a policy-making and community organization
and an enforcer of anti-discrimination laws. The Commission
is authorized to investigate and seek the resolution of discrimination
complaints -- in housing, employment, public accommodations
and private club membership -- through administrative and legal
proceedings.

In Alaska, the
State Commission for Human Rights, is responsible for enforcing
the Alaska Human Rights law, which makes it unlawful to discriminate
in employment, housing, public accommodations, finance and credit,
and state political practices in all cases on the basis of race,
national origin, religion, sex, color, and physical or mental
disability, and in some cases, on the basis of age, pregnancy,
marital status, parenthood, and changes in marital status.

Moreover, many
municipalities have established agencies to monitor and enforce
anti-discrimination legislation. In San Francisco, the Employment,
Housing and Public Accommodations Division of that city's Human
Rights Commission implements the San Francisco Charter and Administrative
Code, which prohibits discrimination in employment, housing,
and public accommodations. Division staff investigate and mediate
complaints involving allegations of discrimination and non-compliance,
as well as prepare and promote community programs aimed at reducing
or eliminating inequalities and educate the community regarding
the principles of equal opportunity. With regard to equal employment,
there are 121 designated Fair Employment Practice agencies created
by state and local jurisdictions which investigate charges of
race discrimination under work-sharing agreements with the EEOC
pursuant to Section 706 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These
are identified at 29 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1601.74.
There are also a number of Tribal Employment Rights organizations
which investigate charges of discrimination on or near Indian
reservations pursuant to work-sharing agreements with the EEOC.
Examples of state laws prohibiting race discrimination in employment
are: the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov.
Code ¤ 12940; the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law
¤ 296; and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, Tex. CA
Labor ¤ 21.051.

In subsequent reports
to the Committee, the United States intends to discuss in greater
detail state and local measures taken to prevent racism and
racial discrimination. As with protections at the federal level,
these measures are complex and comprehensive, therefore requiring
a more detailed discussion than was possible here.

B.
U.S. Reservations, Understandings and Declarations

To ensure that U.S.
law and policy were consonant with the obligations that it would
assume under the Convention, the United States entered certain reservations,
understandings and declarations to the Convention at the time of
ratification. These related, inter alia, to: (a) the Convention's
prohibitions concerning advocacy and incitement, which to a certain
extent are more restrictive than U.S. constitutional guarantees
of free expression and association, (b) the Convention's requirements
to restrict the activities of private persons and non-governmental
entities, which in some instances lie beyond the reach of existing
U.S. law, and (c) the express extension of the Convention's restrictions
to all levels of political organization, which implicates the delicate
relationship between the state and Federal governments in the U.S.
political system. While these differences were primarily ones of
approach rather than substance, each nonetheless required clarification
in the context of U.S. ratification of the Convention.

In making these clarifications,
the United States took particular note of Article 20, which precludes
reservations which are "incompatible with the object and purpose
of the Convention" or "the effect of which would inhibit
the operation of any of the bodies established by the Convention."
The United States believes its reservations, understandings and
declarations, which are an essential element of its consent to be
bound by this instrument, are compatible with its object and purpose;
they also do not inhibit the operation of any bodies established
by the Convention. The United States fully supports the goals of
the Convention. In any event, paragraph 2 of Article 20 provides
an authoritative method of determining whether any reservation is
incompatible or inhibitive in relation to this Convention; namely,
formal objection thereto by at least two-thirds of the States Parties
to the Convention. None of the conditions imposed upon U.S. ratification
of this Convention have been objected to in that manner.

1.
Freedom of Speech

Article
4 of the Convention expressly requires States Parties to condemn
all propaganda and all organizations based on ideas or theories
of superiority of one race or group of persons of one color
or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial
hatred and discrimination in any form. States Parties are further
required to take immediate and positive measures to "eradicate
all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination," inter
alia, by (a) punishing the dissemination of ideas based on racial
superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination,
and acts of violence or incitement to acts of violence, as well
as the provision of assistance to racist activities, including
financing; (b) prohibiting organizations and activities which
promote and incite racial discrimination, including participation
in such organizations and activities; and (c) preventing public
authorities or institutions, whether national or local, from
promoting or inciting racial discrimination.

Article 7 imposes
an undertaking on States Parties to take measures to combat
prejudice and promote tolerance in the fields of teaching, education,
culture and information. These provisions reflect a widely held
view that penalizing and prohibiting the dissemination of ideas
based on racial superiority are central elements in the international
struggle against racial discrimination. The Committee itself
has given a broad interpretation to Article 4, in particular
emphasizing in General Recommendations I (1972) and VII (1985)
that the mandatory requirements of Article 4(a) and (b), are
compatible with the rights of freedom of opinion and expression.
Many other States Parties to the Convention have enacted and
enforced measures to give effect to these requirements.

As a matter of
national policy, the U.S. government has long condemned racial
discrimination, and it engages in many activities both to combat
prejudices leading to racial discrimination and to promote tolerance,
understanding and friendship among national, racial and ethnic
groups. Such programs include those under the authority of Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Bilingual
Education Act, the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange
Act of 1961, the International Education Act (Title VI of the
HEA of 1965), and the National Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities Act of 1965. Also, under U.S. law, federal tax money
cannot be used to support private entities (such as schools)
that practice racial or ethnic discrimination. Further, the
Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990 mandates collection by the
Justice Department of data on crimes motivated by, inter alia,
race.

However, American
citizens applaud the fact that the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution sharply curtails the government's ability to restrict
or prohibit the expression or advocacy of certain ideas, however
objectionable. Under the First Amendment, opinions and speech
are protected without regard to content. This is a cornerstone
of American society that has as much resonance with regard to
modern forms of communication like the Internet as with more
traditional modes of communication. Certain types of speech,
intended and likely to cause imminent violence, may constitutionally
be restricted, so long as the restriction is not undertaken
with regard to the speech's content. For example, several federal
statutes punish "hate crimes," i.e., acts of violence
or intimidation motivated by racial, ethnic or religious hatred
and intended to interfere with the participation of individuals
in certain activities such as employment, housing, public accommodation,
use of public facilities, and the free exercise of religion.
See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. sec. 241, 245, 247; 42 U.S.C. sec. 3631.
An increasing number of state statutes are similarly addressed
to hate crimes, and while they too are constrained by constitutional
protections, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently determined
that bias-inspired criminal conduct may be singled out for especially
severe punishment under state law. In two recent cases, the
U.S. Supreme Court has addressed first amendment issues in the
context of hate crimes legislation. In R.A.V. v. City of St.
Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the municipal ordinance in question
made it a misdemeanor to "place on public or private property
a symbol, object, appellation, characterization, or graffiti,
including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika,
which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger,
alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed,
religion or gender." The Court held that the statute unconstitutionally
restricted freedom of speech on the basis of its content. Notably,
the Court did not find it unconstitutional to criminalize "hate
speech" per se. Instead, a majority of the Court held that
a jurisdiction may not select only some kinds of hate speech
to criminalize while leaving other kinds unrestricted.

Then, in Wisconsin
v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), the Court addressed the issue
of enhanced penalties for crimes motivated by prejudice. Under
the relevant state law, an individual who was convicted of aggravated
assault (an offense which normally carried a penalty of two
years imprisonment) was sentenced to an additional four years
imprisonment because his crime had been racially motivated.

The Wisconsin Supreme
Court had found the statute to be in violation of the First
Amendment, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in R.A.V.
v. City of St. Paul, because it singled out the defendant's
biased thoughts and penalized him based on the content of those
thoughts. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment
and upheld the statute as Constitutional. In a unanimous opinion,
the Court held that while the St. Paul ordinance had (impermissibly)
targeted expression, the Wisconsin enhanced-penalty statute
was aimed at unprotected (indeed, criminal) conduct.

In subsequent decisions,
federal and state courts have followed this distinction, generally
upholding statutes which punish specific behavior motivated
by bias. For example, a federal appellate court sustained the
criminal prosecution under federal civil rights laws of a defendant
who had burned a cross on a Black family's lawn, distinguishing
that act done with intent to intimidate from similar acts meant
to make a political statement. United States v. Stewart, 65
F.3d 918 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied sub nom. Daniel v. United
States, 516 U.S. 1134. In T.B.D. v. Florida, 656 So.2d 479 (Fla.
1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1145 (1996), Florida's highest
court upheld a statute making it a misdemeanor to place a "a
burning or flaming cross, real or simulated" on the property
of another without permission.

During the drafting
of Article 4, the U.S. delegation expressly noted that it posed
First Amendment difficulties, and upon signing the Convention
in 1966, the United States made a declaration to the effect
that it would not accept any requirement thereunder to adopt
legislation or take other actions incompatible with the U.S.
Constitution. A number of other States Parties have conditioned
their acceptance of Article 4 by reference to the need to protect
the freedoms of opinion, expression, association and assembly
recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In becoming a party
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
in 1992, the United States faced a similar problem with respect
to Article 20 of that treaty. In part because the Human Rights
Committee had adopted a similarly broad interpretation of that
article in its General Comment 11 (1983), the United States
entered a reservation intended to make clear that the United
States cannot and will not accept obligations which are inconsistent
with its own Constitutional protections for free speech, expression
and association. A similar reservation was therefore adopted
with respect to the current Convention. It reads:

[T]he
Constitution and laws of the United States contain extensive
protections of individual freedom of speech, expression and
association. Accordingly, the United States does not accept
any obligation under this Convention, in particular under
Articles 4 and 7, to restrict those rights, through the adoption
of legislation or any other measures, to the extent that they
are protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

2.
Private Conduct

Given
the breadth of the definition of "racial discrimination"
under Article 1(1), the obligation imposed on States Parties
in Article 2(1)(d) to bring to an end all racial discrimination
"by any persons, group or organization," and the specific
requirements of paragraphs 2(1)(c) and (d) as well as Articles
3 and 5, the Convention may be viewed as imposing a requirement
on a State Party to take action to prohibit and punish purely
private conduct of a nature generally held to lie beyond the
proper scope of governmental regulation under current U.S. law.

a. Fourteenth
Amendment

Since the time
of the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), the U.S.
Supreme Court has consistently held that the Fourteenth Amendment
does not reach purely private conduct. Thus, the Fourteenth
Amendment can only be invoked to protect against conduct that
is the result of "state action." The state action
requirement of the Equal Protection Clause reflects a traditional
recognition of the need to preserve personal freedom by circumscribing
the reach of governmental intervention and regulation, even
in situations where that personal freedom is exercised in a
discriminatory manner.

In determining
whether "state action" is present in a given case,
the critical inquiry under U.S. domestic law is whether the
conduct of a private party is "fairly attributable"
to the state. Lugar v. Edmonson, 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982).
Under that test, mere governmental involvement with private
parties is often insufficient to trigger a finding of state
action. For example, in and of itself, government licensing
and regulation of private entities is not state action. Moose
Lodge No. 107 v. Irvins, 407 U.S. 163 (1972) (licensing);
Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison, 419 U.S. 345 (1974) (regulation).
The same is true for government contracting. Blum v. Yaretsky,
457 U.S. 991 (1982). However, state employees acting under color
of law are generally considered "state actors." West
v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988). In addition, the Supreme
Court has held that the following constitute state action: the
private performance of "public functions," Marsh
v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946); judicial enforcement of
private discriminatory arrangements such as restrictive covenants
on property, Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948); certain
forms of governmental assistance or subsidies to private parties,
Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455 (1973); and state encouragement
of discrimination by private parties, Reitman v. Mulkey,
387 U.S. 369 (1967).

b. Thirteenth
Amendment

On the other hand,
the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against slavery and involuntary
servitude encompasses both governmental and private action.
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883). The U.S. Supreme
Court has held that Congress may regulate private conduct under
sec. 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment, which provides that "Congress
shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation." Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392
U.S. 409 (1968). Such power includes determining what constitutes
the "badges and incidents of slavery and the authority
to translate that determination into effective legislation."
See also United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 942
(1988) (discussing Thirteenth Amendment right to be free from
involuntary servitude).

Although Jones
could be read as authorizing Congress to regulate a broad array
of harms on the ground that they were a form of servitude and
slavery, the Court has not had the opportunity to define the
outer limits of Jones. The Court has intimated, however,
that "some private discrimination . . . in certain circumstances"
is subject to legislation under Section 2 of the Thirteenth
Amendment. See Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455, 470
(1973). For instance, the Reconstruction Era civil rights statutes
discussed above (42 U.S.C. sec. 1981, 1982 and 1983, which create
a cause of action against any person who, acting under color
of state law, abridges rights created by the Constitution),
have been used to prohibit private actors from engaging in racial
discrimination in a variety of activities, including the sale
or rental of private property, see Jones, 392 U.S. at
413; the assignment of a lease, see Sullivan v. Little Hunting
Park, Inc., 396 U.S. 229 (1969); and the grant of membership
in a community swimming pool, see Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven
Recreation Ass'n. Inc., 410 U.S. 431 (1973); the making
and enforcement of private contracts, see Patterson v. McLean
Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 272 (1989); see also Runyon
v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976) (reaching refusal of private
school to admit Black students). Finally, section 1985(3) has
been applied to some private conspiracies. Compare Bray v.
Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993) (demonstration
against abortions clinics was not within the scope of statute)
with Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971) (conspiracy
to deprive Blacks of right of interstate travel was within the
reach of statute).

c. Commerce
and Spending Powers

In addition to
the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress may regulate private conduct
through the Commerce and Spending powers it possesses under
Article I of the Constitution. For example, it was under the
Commerce Clause that Congress passed Title II and Title VII
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibit private entities
from discriminating in public accommodations and employment.
See Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964). The Fair
Housing Act is similarly grounded in the Commerce Clause. Further,
it was under Congress' Spending Power as well as under its authority
under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that Congress passed
Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination
by public and private institutions that receive federal funds.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).

Arguably, the reference
to "public life" in the definition of "racial
discrimination" in Article 1(1) of the present Convention
might be read to limit the reach of its prohibitions to actions
and conduct involving some measure of governmental involvement
or "state action." The negotiating history of the
Convention is far from clear on this point, however, and it
is not possible to say with certainty that the term "public
life" as contemplated by the drafters is synonymous with
the permissible sphere of governmental regulation under U.S.
law. Moreover, the Committee appears to have taken an expansive
view in this regard, finding in the Convention a prohibition
against racial discrimination perpetuated by any person or group
against another. Accordingly, some forms of private individual
or organizational conduct that are not now subject to governmental
regulation under U.S. law could well be found within the sphere
of "public life" as that term is interpreted under
the Convention.

Accordingly, it
was appropriate to indicate clearly, through a formal reservation,
that U.S. undertakings in this regard are limited by the reach
of constitutional and statutory protections under U.S. law as
they may exist at any given time:

[T]he Constitution
and laws of the United States establish extensive protections
against discrimination, reaching significant areas of non-governmental
activity. Individual privacy and freedom from governmental interference
in private conduct, however, are also recognized as among the
fundamental values which shape our free and democratic society.
The United States understands that the identification of the
rights protected under the Convention by reference in Article
1 to fields of "public life" reflects a similar distinction
between spheres of public conduct that are customarily the subject
of governmental regulation, and spheres of private conduct that
are not. To the extent, however, that the Convention calls for
a broader regulation of private conduct, the United States does
not accept any obligation under this Convention to enact legislation
or take other measures under paragraph (1) of Article 2, subparagraphs
(1)(c) and (d) of Article 2, Article 3 and Article 5 with respect
to private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and
laws of the United States.

3.
Dispute Settlement

In
accordance with its long-standing policy, the United States
also conditioned its adherence to the Convention upon a reservation
requiring its consent to the exercise of the jurisdiction of
the International Court of Justice over any dispute that might
arise between it and another State Party. The text of this reservation
is identical to those recently taken upon ratification of other
treaties, including the ICCPR:

[W]ith
reference to Article 22 of the Convention, before any dispute
to which the United States is a party may be submitted to
the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under
this article, the specific consent of the United States is
required in each case.

4.
Federalism

Given
its Constitutional roots and its embodiment in the extensive
statutory provisions enacted by Congress over the decades, federal
anti-discrimination law is pervasive and reaches federal, state
and local levels of government. Where Constitutionally permissible,
it provides the basis for broad regulation of racially-discriminatory
conduct at the private level. Nonetheless, because the Congress
is a legislature of limited jurisdiction, it must find authority
for its statutes somewhere in the U.S. Constitution, e.g., through
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause or
the Spending Clauses. In those limited circumstances where the
Constitution does not permit the application of federal anti-discrimination
laws, state and local governments have some authority to act.
Under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, "[t]he powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people." Thus, the state and local governments
retain a fairly substantial range of actions within which to
regulate or prohibit discriminatory actions. In some instances,
state and local governments have exercised their inherent authority
by adopting statutes and administrative regulations providing
powerful and effective protections against, and remedies for,
private discrimination based on race, color, ethnicity and national
origin. Indeed, in some states, courts have interpreted their
state constitutions to provide even broader protections against
discrimination than under federal law.

Because the fundamental
requirements of the Convention are respected and complied with
at all levels of government, the United States concluded there
was no need to preempt these state and local initiatives or
to federalize the entire range of anti-discriminatory actions
through the exercise of the Constitutional treaty power. Indeed,
there is no need for implementing legislation providing the
Federal government with a cause of action against the constituent
states to ensure that states fulfill the obligations of the
Convention. Subject to the constraints imposed by our federal
system, the Federal government already has the authority under
the Constitution and the federal civil rights laws to take action
against states to enforce the matters covered by the Convention.

It is important
to stress that this understanding is not a reservation. It does
not condition or limit the international obligations of the
United States. Nor can it serve as an excuse for any failure
to comply with those obligations as a matter of domestic or
international law. Instead, it addresses a specific and sensitive
aspect of the fundamental governmental structure of the United
States. As an aspect of the modality of implementation in domestic
law, this understanding is entirely within the discretion of
the United States as a State Party and contravenes no provision
of the Convention.

In ratifying the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1992,
the United States addressed this issue through adoption of an
interpretive understanding, the effect of which was to clarify
that the United States will carry out its obligations in a manner
consistent with the federal nature of its form of government.
A similar understanding was adopted for the Torture Convention
as well as for the current Convention:

[T]he United
States understands that this Convention shall be implemented
by the Federal government to the extent that it exercises jurisdiction
over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state
and local governments. To the extent that state and local governments
exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal government
shall, as necessary, take appropriate measures to ensure the
fulfillment of this Convention.

5.
Non Self-executing Treaty

In
ratifying the Convention, the United States made the following
declaration:

[T]he
United States declares that the provisions of the Convention
are not self-executing.

This declaration has
no effect on the international obligations of the United States
or on its relations with States Parties. However, it does have
the effect of precluding the assertion of rights by private parties
based on the Convention in litigation in U.S. courts. In considering
ratification of previous human rights treaties, in particular
the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1994) and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1992), both the Executive
Branch and the Senate have considered it prudent to declare that
those treaties do not create new or independently enforceable
private rights in U.S. courts. However, this declaration does
not affect the authority of the Federal government to enforce
the obligations that the United States has assumed under the Convention
through administrative or judicial action.

As was the case
with prior human rights treaties, existing U.S. law provides
protections and remedies sufficient to satisfy the requirements
of the present Convention. Moreover, federal, state and local
laws already provide a comprehensive basis for challenging discriminatory
statutes, regulations and other governmental actions in court,
as well as certain forms of discriminatory conduct by private
actors. Given the adequacy of the provisions already present
in U.S. law, there was no discernible need for the establishment
of additional causes of action or new avenues of litigation
in order to guarantee compliance with the essential obligations
assumed by the United States under the Convention.

This declaration
has frequently been misconstrued and misinterpreted. Declaring
the Convention to be non-self-executing in no way lessens the
obligation of the United States to comply with its provisions
as a matter of international law. Neither does it contravene
any provision of the treaty or restrict the enjoyment of any
right guaranteed by U.S. obligations under the Convention. There
is, of course, no requirement in the Convention that States
Parties make it "self executing" in their domestic
law, or that private parties be afforded a specific cause of
action in domestic courts on the basis of the Convention itself.
The drafters quite properly left the question of implementation
to the domestic laws of each State Party.

The United States
is aware of the Committee's preference for the direct inclusion
of the Convention into the domestic law of States Parties. Some
non-governmental advocacy groups in the United States would
also prefer that human rights treaties be made "self-executing"
in order to serve as vehicles for litigation. The declaration
reflects a different choice, one in favor of retaining existing
remedies for private parties

C. Specific
Articles

Article
1 - Racial Discrimination

A preliminary word
is necessary about the Convention's definition of "racial
discrimination." Although the definition included in Article
1(1) contains two specific terms ("descent" and "ethnic
origin") not typically used in federal civil rights legislation
and practice, there is no indication in the negotiating history
of the Convention or in the Committee's subsequent interpretation
that those terms encompass characteristics which are not already
subsumed in the terms "race," "color," and
"national origin" as these terms are used in existing
U.S. law. See, e.g., Saint Frances College v. Al-Khazraji,
481 U.S. 604 (1987); Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb,
481 U.S. 615 (1987); Roach v. Dresser Industrial Valve,
494 F. Supp. 215 (W.D. La. 1980). The United States thus interprets
its undertakings, and intends to carry out its obligations,
under the Convention on that basis.

Article
2 Eliminate Racial Discrimination

Under Article 2(1),
States Parties to the Convention condemn and undertake to eliminate
racial discrimination in all its forms and by all appropriate
means. To this end, this article specifies a number of specific
undertakings.

Art.
2(1)a Prohibition of Discrimination

(a) As
required by Article 2(1)(a), racial discrimination by the government
is prohibited throughout the United States. The Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments guarantee that no public authority may engage in
an act or practice of racial discrimination against persons,
groups of persons or institutions. These prohibitions apply
with equal force at the federal, state and local levels, and
all public authorities and institutions must comply. As indicated
above, U.S. law extends this prohibition to private organizations,
institutions and employers under many circumstances.

Art
2(1)b No Support or Defense of Discrimination

(b) Under
Article 2(1)(b), States Parties undertake not to sponsor, defend
or support racial discrimination by any person. Such conduct
is strictly prohibited in the United States. The U.S. Constitution
prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or other personal
characteristics at every level of government (federal, state,
and local). Several federal statutes, including Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibit discrimination by state
or local governments, or private entities, that receive federal
financial assistance. Not only does the U.S. government not
sponsor, defend, or support discrimination, but the Federal
government is actively engaged in the enforcement of anti-discrimination
statutes against public and private entities in the areas of
discrimination in employment, voting, housing and education.

Art.
2(1)c Take Effective Measures to Eliminate

(c) Article
2(1)(c) requires States Parties to "take effective measures
to review governmental, national and local policies . . . which
have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination."
Article 2(1)(c) also requires States Parties to "amend,
rescind or nullify any laws and regulations" that have
such effects.

The United States
satisfies the policy review obligation of Article 2(1)(c) through
this nation's legislative and administrative process, as well
as through court challenges brought by governmental and private
litigants. U.S. law is under continuous legislative and administrative
revision and judicial review.

Art
2(1)d Prohibit and Bring to an End Discrimination

(d) Article
2(1)(d) requires each State Party to "prohibit and bring
to an end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as
required by the circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons,
group or organization."

As indicated above,
governmental policy at all levels reflects this undertaking,
and there are many different mechanisms, including litigation
and legislation, through which this important goal is being
achieved by the United States.

As
discussed in the context of the United States' reservations, understandings
and declarations above, there are important constitutional limits
on the permissible reach of governmental regulation in the United
States. For the reasons articulated in that discussion above,
the United States conditioned its ratification on a formal reservation
stating that, to the extent the Convention calls for a broader
regulation of private conduct than permissible under U.S. law,
the United States does not accept any obligation under this Convention
to enact legislation or take other measures under paragraph (1)
of Article 2, subparagraphs (1)(c) and (d) of Article 2, Article
3 and Article 5 with respect to private conduct except as mandated
by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Art
2(1)e Encourage Integrationist Multi-racial Organizations

Under
Article 2(1)(e), each State Party undertakes "to encourage,
when appropriate, integrationist multi-racial organizations and
movements and other means of eliminating barriers between races,
and to discourage anything which tends to strengthen racial division."

As part of his Initiative
on Race, President Clinton has taken important steps to encourage
various sectors of United States society to celebrate diversity
and work toward the goal of building One America by promoting
racial reconciliation and encouraging racial equal opportunity
for all.

For example, on
July 20, 1999, President Clinton issued a call to action to
the legal community to enlist their support in the fight for
equal justice. Leading organizations in the United States, including
the American Bar Association, the American Corporate Counsel
Association, the Association of American Law Schools and the
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, responded by forming the
"Lawyers for One America." Lawyers for One America
is a unique collaboration with a mission to promote racial justice
through increased pro bono legal service and diversity initiatives
within the legal community.

On March 9, 2000,
President Clinton met with a broad group of American religious
leaders to highlight new commitments and programs they have
pledged to undertake within the faith community to ensure that
the nation's religious organizations are doing their part to
expand diversity, end racism and promote racial reconciliation.
At the meeting, the National Conference for Community and Justice
(NCCJ) pledged to hold a national forum of faith leaders to
share information on their efforts and to seek commitments from
other faith leaders to address race issues.

On April 6, 2000,
President Clinton met with the leaders of the nation's largest
corporations to challenge them to promote diversity and make
commitments to expand economic opportunities to racial minorities
and close the opportunity gap that exists in the United States.
At the meeting, several corporate leaders pledged to convene
dialogues on racial issues, workplace diversity and employment
equity during the next year. In addition, twenty-five leading
companies pledged to spend $250 million, $1 million per year
for the next ten years, to expand diversity in the high technology
workforce.

Also inspired by
President Clinton's leadership on race relations, numerous cities
in the United States, like Indianapolis, Indiana and Grand Rapids,
Michigan, have held or are planning to hold day-long "race
summits" that bring together people of diverse backgrounds
to hold dialogues on racial reconciliation.

The Department of
Justice promotes the goals of Article 2(1)(e) through active
involvement in communities beset by either actual or potential
destructive racial conflict. The Department's Community Relations
Service sends experienced mediators to assist local communities
in resolving and preventing racial and ethic conflict, violence
or civil disorder. For over thirty years, the Department has
played an enormously positive role in conflict prevention at
the local level.

The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) seeks to eliminate
racial discrimination through education and prevention, and by
publishing policy guidance statements, compliance manuals and
other educational materials. The EEOC also regularly sponsors
nationwide technical assistance program seminars, and makes presentations
to employee and employer interest groups. Within the past two
years, the EEOC has developed a comprehensive website http://www.eeoc.gov
and launched a mediation program in each of its district offices,
with the goal of resolving charges of discrimination while preserving
working relationships.

Art
2(2) Special Measures

Special
Measures.
Article 2(2) provides that, when circumstances so warrant, States
Parties shall take "special and concrete measures" for
the "adequate development and protection of certain racial
groups or persons belonging to them for the purpose of guaranteeing
to them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental
freedoms." Article 1(4) specifically excludes from the definition
of "racial discrimination" "[s]pecial measures
taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of
certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such
protection" in order to provide equal enjoyment of human
rights and fundamental freedoms. Such measures may not, however,
lead to the maintenance of "unequal or separate rights for
different racial groups" or "be continued after the
objectives for which they were taken have been achieved."

Together, Article
1(4) and Article 2(2) permit, but do not require, States Parties
to adopt race-based affirmative action programs without violating
the Convention. Deciding when such measures are in fact warranted
is left to the discretion of each State Party.

At the federal level,
the United States has been pursuing such "special measures"
for many years. For much of this century, racial and ethnic
minorities and women have confronted a variety of legal and
social barriers to equal opportunity in the United States. Segregated,
inferior schooling combined with historic economic disadvantage
left many effectively barred from participating in the benefits
of a growing national economy. Even after the legal barriers
to equal treatment were removed, the residual economic and social
effects remained.

In 1961, President
John F. Kennedy issued an Executive Order (No. 10925) which
used the term "affirmative action" to refer to measures
designed to achieve non-discrimination in employment. Four years
later, President Lyndon Johnson signed Executive Order 11246,
requiring federal contractors to take affirmative action to
ensure equality of employment opportunity without regard to
race, religion and national origin. In 1967, the Executive Order
was amended to add gender as a prohibited basis of discrimination.
The most far-reaching expansion of the affirmative action approach
at the federal level took place in 1969 in connection with the
so-called "Philadelphia Order" concerning construction
trades in Philadelphia, PA.

The concept of using
affirmative action to ensure equality of opportunity was initially
incorporated into federal statutory law through Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aimed at ending discrimination
by large private employers whether or not they had government
contracts.

A substantial number
of existing federal ameliorative measures could be considered
"special and concrete measures" for the purposes of
Article 2(2). These include the array of efforts designed to
promote fair employment, statutory programs requiring affirmative
action in federal contracting, including sheltered corporations,
race-conscious educational scholarships, and direct support
for historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving
institutions and Tribal colleges. Some are hortatory, such as
those based in statutes encouraging recipients of federal funds
to use minority-owned and women-owned banks. Others are mandatory;
for instance, the Community Reinvestment Act requires federally
chartered financial institutions to conduct and record efforts
to reach out to under-served communities, including, but not
limited to, minority communities. Still others focus on targeted
outreach and training efforts; for instance, the U.S. Department
of State maintains the Foreign Affairs Fellowship Program, an
initiative designed to increase minority participation in the
Foreign Service.

The Small Business
Act requires each federal agency to set goals for contracting
with "small and disadvantaged businesses." Under its
so-called "Section 1207" authority, the Defense Department
is permitted to provide a ten percent bid price preference and
to employ reduced-competition systems when necessary to meet
its "small and disadvantaged businesses" contracting
goals. The Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act
requires that a minimum of ten percent of funds appropriated
for diplomatic security projects be allocated to minority business
enterprises. Certain small education grant programs (e.g., those
under the Patricia Roberts Harris Fellowship, 20 U.S.C. sec.
1134d-g, and the Women and Minorities in Graduate Education
Program, 20 U.S.C. sec. 1134a) target minorities in graduate
education. The Department of Agriculture gives preferences to
"socially disadvantaged" persons in the sale of farm
properties and sets aside loan funds for farmers in this group.
The Department of the Treasury administers a "minority-owned
bank deposit" program in which designated banks receive
special consideration to act as depositary institutions holding
cash for federal agencies, so long as no increased cost or risk
results to the government. The Department of Transportation
gives preferences to small businesses owned and controlled by
socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in Department
of Transportation-assisted contracts.

The Clinton Administration
has placed substantial emphasis on increasing educational opportunities
for minorities in the United States. For instance, the Hispanic
Education Action Plan is designed to provide targeted assistance
to raise the educational achievement of Hispanic students and
to close the achievement gap. The Plan incorporates a number
of other programs, such as the State Agency Migrant Program
and "GEAR UP."

Enacted in 1998
and administered by the Department of Education, GEAR UP funds
partnerships of high-poverty middle schools, colleges and universities,
community organizations, and businesses. The partnerships provide
tutoring, mentoring, information on college preparation and
financial aid, an emphasis on core academic preparation, and,
in some cases, scholarships. In its first year, GEAR UP is serving
nearly 450,000 students nationwide. Over 1,000 organizations
are GEAR UP partners, including colleges and universities, libraries,
arts organizations, local chambers of commerce, the YMCA, Boys
and Girls Clubs, Wal-Mart, Unisys, and the New York Times Education
Program. In the upcoming year, GEAR UP is expected to serve
over 750,000 students.

Art
3 Condemn Racial Segregation and Apartheid

Article
3 requires States Parties to condemn racial segregation and apartheid
and to undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate "all
practices of this nature" in territories under their jurisdiction.

State-sponsored
segregation and de jure discrimination has been prohibited
in the United States since the enactment of the Thirteenth,
Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments a few years after the end
of the Civil War. However, the federal courts interpreted those
provisions to permit state-sponsored and private racial discrimination
(so-called "separate but equal" treatment of the races)
through the first half of the Twentieth Century. This interpretation
was authoritatively overruled by the Supreme Court in 1954 in
Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed racial segregation
in public schools and set the foundation for the elimination
of segregation in all forms of public life. As discussed above,
a series of Civil Rights Acts following that decision has extended
the reach of this prohibition to many private relationships
and activities. The United States emphatically condemns racial
segregation and apartheid and prohibits any such practice in
all territories under its jurisdiction.

Prior
to the removal of the racist regimes in southern Africa, the United
States condemned the policies and practices of those regimes and
imposed economic and related sanctions in accordance with the
decisions of the United Nations. Independent of the Federal government's
actions, many state and local governments as well as private institutions
also acted to divest or otherwise dissociate themselves economically
and politically from governments and institutions supporting or
tolerating apartheid. Non-governmental groups supported economic
boycotts and lobbied and pressured government at all levels to
exert political and economic influence to end the racist policies
in South Africa.

Article
4 Eliminate Incitements or Acts of Discrimination

As a
nation, the American people reject all theories of the superiority
of one race or group of persons of one color or ethnic origin
or theories which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred
and discrimination. It is government policy to condemn such theories,
and none is espoused at any level of government.

The Convention requires
more however. States Parties must "undertake to adopt immediate
and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to,
or acts of, such discrimination." More specifically, Article
4(a) obliges States Parties to penalize four categories of misconduct:

(i) all
dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred,

(ii) incitement
to racial hatred,

(iii) all
acts of violence or incitement to violence against any race
or group of persons of another color or ethnic origin, and

(iv) the
provision of any assistance to racist activities, including
the financing thereof.

The
Committee has stressed the importance with which it views these
obligations, as reflected, for example, in General Recommendation
VII adopted in 1985 in which the Committee stressed the mandatory
character of Article 4, and General Recommendation XV of 1993
in which the Committee stated its opinion that "the prohibition
of the dissemination of all ideas based on racial superiority
or hatred is compatible with the right to freedom of opinion and
expression." Article 4(b) requires States Parties to declare
illegal and prohibit organizations which promote and incite racial
discrimination, to prohibit their propaganda activities, and to
make participation in such organizations and activities an offense
punishable by law. Article 4(c) imposes an obligation to forbid
public authorities and institutions from promoting or inciting
racial discrimination.

Constitutional
Limitations. For the reasons described earlier, the ability
of the United States to give effect to these requirements is
circumscribed by Constitutional protections of individual freedom
of speech, expression and association. Accordingly, the United
States took a reservation to this article, and to the corresponding
provisions of Article 7, to make clear that it cannot accept
any obligation to restrict those rights, through the adoption
of legislation or any other measures, to the extent that they
are protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Nonetheless, there
remains a substantial area in which the United States can, and
does, give effect to this article.

Article
5 Equality Under the Law

Article
5 obliges States Parties to prohibit and eliminate racial discrimination
in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone to equality
before the law, without distinction as to race, color, or national
or ethnic origin. The protections of the U.S. Constitution meet
this fundamental requirement. The policy and objectives of government
at all levels are also consistent with its provisions.

Importantly,
Article 5 goes even further, requiring States Parties to guarantee
equality and non-discrimination on this basis "notably
in the enjoyment" of a list of specifically enumerated
rights. Some of these enumerated rights, which may be characterized
as economic, social and cultural rights, are not explicitly
recognized as legally enforceable "rights" under U.S.
law. However, Article 5 does not affirmatively require States
Parties to provide or to ensure observance of each of the listed
rights themselves, but rather to prohibit discrimination in
the enjoyment of those rights to the extent they are provided
by domestic law. In this respect, U.S. law fully complies with
the requirements of the Convention. In many of the areas covered
by this article, however, serious problems exist.

Article
5(a) Equality Before Tribunals

Equality
Before Tribunals.
The right to equal treatment before tribunals and all other organs
administering justice, as guaranteed by Article 5(a), is provided
by U.S. law through the operation of the Equal Protection Clause
of the U.S. Constitution, which is binding on all governmental
entities at all levels throughout the United States. This right
has been reinforced by a number of constitutional decisions. For
example, race may not be a criterion in the selection of jurors
in criminal or civil cases. See Hernandez v. Texas, 347
U.S. 475 (1954); Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
Nonetheless, the perception of unequal treatment in the criminal
justice system is widespread among Blacks and Hispanics, and in
many respects that perception is supported by data.

Some
have raised concerns about the use of so-called "secret
evidence" in legal proceedings against immigrants. Particularly,
critics of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act, which has been interpreted to permit use of this evidence,
cite the disproportionate effect on Arab-Americans and American
Muslims. The United States has taken the position that the limited
use of such evidence, in the context of a system that includes
procedural protections, does not violate due process or equal
protection guarantees.

Article
5(b) Security of Person

Security
of Person.
Under Article 5(b) the State Party must provide equal protection
against violence and bodily harm, whether inflicted by governmental
officials or by individuals, groups or institutions.

As discussed above,
U.S. law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color,
ethnicity or national origin. Notably, the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee equal protection
of the laws to all persons. This guarantee extends to equal
protection against violence and bodily harm. Moreover, several
statutes have been enacted at both the state and federal level
which create criminal and civil liability for violence or threats
of violence on the basis of race, color, ethnicity or national
origin. See, e.g., Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994; Civil Rights Act of 1968.

U.S.
law has long provided criminal penalties for certain violations
of civil rights, including particular acts of violence motivated
by racism. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. sec. 245(b)(2); 18 U.S.C. sec.
247(c); 42 U.S.C. sec. 3631. Federal "hate crimes" law
prohibits any person from using force or willful threats to injure,
intimidate, or interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate
or interfere with any person because of his or her race, color,
religion, or national origin and because he or she is engaging
in certain federally protected rights, including rights related
to education, employment and the use of public facilities and
establishments which serve the public. In some instances, harsher
penalties have been available when ordinary crimes are committed
with racist intent. In addition, many states also protect equal
rights to security of person through state hate crime laws.

Article
5(c) Political Rights

Political
Rights.
As required by Article 5(c), U.S. law guarantees the right to
participate equally in elections, to vote and stand for election
on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, to take part in
the government as well as in the conduct of public affairs, and
to have equal access to public service.

These guarantees
arose in the mid-1960s in response to the continued discrimination
against Blacks in the electoral process despite the ratification
in 1870 of the Fifteenth Amendment, which was intended to protect
the right to vote from denial or abridgement on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude. With the enactment
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the political process started
to become open to Blacks. As interpreted, this statute also
reaches discrimination on the basis of ethnic or national origin.
It also requires that bilingual voting information be made available
where more than 5 percent of the population or 10,000 individuals
within a jurisdiction speak a language other than English. The
statute was amended in 1982 to prohibit practices that result
in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote.

The Department of
Justice is responsible, along with private plaintiffs, for the
enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The Department brings
suits in federal court under Section 2 of the Act to challenge
voting practices or procedures that have the purpose or effect
of denying equal opportunity to minority voters to elect their
candidates of choice.

By operation of
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, any change with respect
to voting that occurs in a specially covered jurisdiction (applies
to nine states in their entirety and to parts of seven additional
states) must obtain federal pre-approval before it can be put
into affect. The federal review is designed to ensure that the
voting change in question will not have the purpose or effect
of making minority voters worse off. The Civil Rights Division
reviews approximately 20,000 voting changes per year. In recent
years, the Attorney General has blocked implementation of a
wide variety of discriminatory changes, including annexations
and at-large election systems that dilute minority voting strength,
discriminatory local and statewide redistricting plans, discriminatory
redistricting guidelines, and discriminatory voter assistance
procedures.

In recent years,
the Supreme Court has recognized a new cause of action that
permits White voters to challenge redistricting plans enacted
by state or local governments as unconstitutional. This cause
of action requires that if a state or local government uses
race as the "predominant factor" in redistricting,
that use will be subject to strict judicial scrutiny. Under
that standard, the action will only be upheld if there is compelling
governmental interest in the use of race and if the use is narrowly
tailored to meet that interest.

As of August 1,
2000, of the total 1,218 judges on the federal bench, 106 are
Black (8.7 percent), 51 are Hispanic (4.2 percent), and three
are Native American (0. percent). Of the nine justices on the
U.S. Supreme Court, one is of a racial minority (Black). Of
the 159 judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeal, ten are Black (6.3
percent), ten are Hispanic (6.3 percent), two are Native American
(0.6 percent), and one is Asian (0.6 percent).

According to the
Directory of Minority of Judges of the United States published
by the American Bar Association, of the approximately 60,000
state court judges, 3,610 are of racial minorities (approximately
6 percent). Of this number, 1,680 are Black, 1,310 are Hispanic,
254 are Asian, and 42 are Native American.

With respect to
the 535 members of the 106th Congress, 37 are Black (6.9 percent),
18 are Hispanic (3.4 percent), three are Asian (0.6 percent),
and one is Native American (0.2 percent). Of the 50 state governors,
only two are of racial minorities - both are Asian. Finally,
of the mayors of the 25 largest cities in the United States,
eight are Black (32 percent) and two are Hispanic (8 percent).

In
1992 the Census Bureau collected data regarding minority participation
in local elected office through the 1992 Census of Governments.
The census collected data regarding general purpose government
officials (e.g., municipal mayors and city councilors) and special
purpose government officials (e.g., school board members). Among
the 419,761 officials for whom race or Hispanic origin was reported,
405, 905 were White (96.7 percent); 11,542 were Black (2.7 percent);
1,800 were American Indian, Eskimo and Aleut (0.4 percent); and
514 were Asian or Pacific Islander (0.1 percent). There were 5,859
local elected officials who identified themselves as Hispanic
(1.4 percent). This data reflected a notable increase in minority
representation since the last time the Census of Governments was
conducted in 1987.

Article
5(d) Other Civil Rights

Other
Civil Rights. Article 5(d) obliges States Parties to ensure
equality of enjoyment of a number of human rights and fundamental
freedoms, including freedom of movement and residence, the right
to leave one's country and return, the right to a nationality,
the right to marriage and choice of spouse, the right to own property
alone as well as in association with others, the right to inherit,
the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the
right to freedom of opinion and expression, the right to freedom
of peaceful assembly and association.

These rights are
guaranteed to all persons in the United States in accordance
with various Constitutional and statutory provisions. The right
to freedom of movement and residence in the United States is
guaranteed to all citizens by the "right to travel."
Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868). The right of a
citizen to enter and leave the United States is recognized by
law. The right to marriage and choice of a spouse is one of
the "fundamental rights" protected by the privacy
provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Zablocki v. Redhail,
434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
The right to non-discrimination in the ownership of property
is protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
See 42 U.S.C. sec. 1982; Shelly v. Kramer, 334 U.S. 1
(1948) (finding state action in the state court's enforcement
of racially restrictive covenants unconstitutional). Freedom
of thought, conscience, religion, opinion, expression and assembly
are protected by the First Amendment. One of the purposes of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was to protect
these ordinary rights of citizens against encroachment by state
and local governments. These "privileges and immunities"
of national citizenship cannot be abridged by state or local
legislation.

Specific
intent to interfere with these rights may be criminally prosecutable
under a number of statutes. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. sec. 241 (for
conspiracy to deprive persons of such rights), 242 (for deprivation
of rights under "color of law"), 245 (for violence or
threatened interference with specified federal rights motivated
in part by racial animus), 247 (for violent or threatening interference
with right to exercise one's religious beliefs), and 42 U.S.C.
sec. 3631 (for violent or threatening interference with rights
to own or occupy property and to associate therein with persons
of another race).

Article
5(e) Economic Social and Cultural Rights

Economic
Social and Cultural Rights. Article 5(e)(i) guarantees equality
and non-discrimination with regard to the right to work, to free
choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work,
to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work,
and to just and favorable remuneration. As a matter of law and
regulation, this obligation is met; in practice, however, significant
disparities continue. The sources or causes of socio-economic
differences are complex and depend on a combination of societal
conditions, such as the state of the national and local economies,
continued racial and ethnic discrimination in education and employment,
and individual characteristics, such as educational background,
occupational experiences, and family background.

Although some narrowing
of economic status among various racial and ethnic groups has
occurred in recent years, substantial gaps persist. For example,
in 1998 the median incomes of White non-Hispanic households
and of Asian and Pacific Islander households ($42,400 and $46,600,
respectively) were much higher than those of Black and Hispanic
households ($25,400 and $28,300, respectively). By one 1993
measure, the median wealth (net worth) of White households was
nearly 10 times that of Black and Hispanic households. In 1998,
the poverty rate among Blacks (26.1 percent) was more than triple
the poverty rate of White non-Hispanics (8.2 percent). The poverty
rate among Hispanics (25.6 percent) was not statistically different
from that of Blacks. According to data from the 1990 decennial
census, the poverty rate for American Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts
was 30.9 percent in 1989. In the same year, the poverty rate
was 9.8 percent for Whites, 29.5 percent for Blacks, and 14.1
percent for Asians and Pacific Islanders.

The pervasiveness
of child poverty is of particular concern. Since 1993, poverty
rates for children under 18 years within the United States have
fallen, but differences among racial and ethnic groups remain
high. Between 1993 and 1998, the poverty rate for White children
fell 2.7 percentage points to 15.1 percent. The rate for Black
children fell even more, from 46.1 percent to 36.7 percent,
but was still twice as high as the rate for White children.
The rate for Hispanic children fell from 40.9 percent in 1993
to 34.4 percent in 1998, but was not statistically different
from the rate for Black children in 1998. By comparison, the
rate for Asian and Pacific Islander children in 1998 was 18.0
percent, not statistically different from the rate for White
children, and the same as in 1993 (18.2 percent).

In 1989, the poverty
rate for American Indian, Eskimo and Aleut children was 38.3
percent [note
6]. In the same year, the poverty rate was 12.1 percent
for White children, 39.5 percent for Black children, and 16.7
percent for Asian and Pacific Islander children.

Although there has
been an unmistakable increase in inequality both overall and
among racial and economic groups in the United States since
the mid-1970's, some trends indicate movement toward greater
economic equality. As a result of fiscal discipline, investments
in the American people, and increased trade, the United States
is in the midst of the longest economic expansion in its history.
The unemployment rate for Blacks has fallen from an average
of 14.2 percent in 1992 to an average of 7.7 percent in 2000
- the lowest rate on record. Since 1993, the poverty rate for
Blacks has dropped from 33.1 percent to 26.1 percent in 1998
- another record low. Also, the unemployment rate for Hispanics
has dropped from an average of 11.6 percent in 1992 to an average
of 5.8 percent in 2000; and the poverty rate for Hispanics as
fallen to 25.6 percent, the lowest since 1979.

With
regard to other social and cultural rights, as the percentage
of immigrants living in the United States has increased in recent
years, larger numbers of individuals primarily speak languages
other than English. While the number of individuals who speak
or understand English and another language is also increasing,
this diversity in languages has been met with calls for official
language policies or legislation that requires that only English
be spoken in the workplace. The present administration has taken
the position that an "Official English" law would effectively
exclude Americans who are not fully proficient in English from
employment, voting, and equal participation in society and be
subject to serious constitutional challenge. (Statement of Administration
Policy, H.R. 123, 104th Congress).

Article
5(f) Access to Public Accommodations

Access
to Public Accommodations.
Consistent with Article 5(f), U.S. law provides strong protections
for the right of equal access to any place or service intended
for use by the general public, including transport, hotels, restaurants,
cafes, theaters and parks.

Title II of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. sec. 2000a) prohibits discrimination
because of race, color, religion, and national origin in certain
places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants,
and certain places of entertainment. In addition, most states
have their own laws requiring equal access to public accommodations.

Over the last five
years, the majority of public accommodation cases pursued by
the Justice Department have involved bars or nightclubs that
utilize a similar pattern to keep Black patrons from entering
the establishment. Typically the club owner advises Black patrons
that the club is private and the patron would have to apply
for membership. White patrons, in contrast, are allowed entry
without membership or are offered the opportunity to become
members on the spot. Cases that raised this scenario include
United States v Patin, United States v. Broussard,
United States v. Lagneaux, and United States v. Richard,
all cases filed in Louisiana in 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1999 respectively;
and United States v. C & A Enterprises, filed in West Virginia
in 1996. These cases were resolved and the defendants enjoined
from continuing their discriminatory practices.

Two Title II suits
in recent years have more broadly alleged discrimination in
nationwide chains. In 1999, the Department sued HBE Corporation,
the owner of the Adam's Mark Hotels. The lawsuit alleged that
AMH placed non-white guests in less desirable rooms than white
guests or segregate them to the least desirable areas of the
hotel; charged non-white guests higher room rates than white-guests;
charged different prices for goods and services for non-whites
guests than white guests; applied stricter security, reservation,
and identification requirements to non-white guests than white
guests; and had policies to limit the number of non-white clientele
in the hotel's restaurants, bars, lounges or clubs. A proposed
settlement of the case is pending court approval. It will enjoin
future discrimination at Adam's Mark Hotels and provides for
a compliance officer to monitor compliance with the settlement
decree; investigate any complaints filed by hotel guests; review,
approve, and monitor a training program as well as oversee a
testing program; and establish a marketing plan to identify,
target, and reach African American markets.

Several
years earlier, a suit was filed against the Denny's Restaurant
chain. On May, 24, 1994, settlement papers were filed in the United
States' Title II action and two private lawsuits against Denny's,
one of the largest food service companies in the country. The
settlement, embodied in two consent decrees filed in U.S. District
Courts in Los Angeles and Baltimore, resolved these suits that
had claimed that Denny's failed to serve Blacks, required Blacks
to pre-pay for their food, forced them to pay a cover charge,
and neglected to serve them. Under the settlement, Denny's agreed
to pay $45 million in damages and implement a nationwide program
to prevent future discrimination. The decrees required Denny's,
inter alia, to: retain an independent Civil Rights Monitor
with broad responsibilities to monitor and enforce compliance
with the decrees; educate and train current and new employees
in racial sensitivity and their obligations under the Public Accommodations
Act; implement a testing program to monitor the practices of its
company and franchised-owned restaurants; and feature Black and
members of other racial minority groups as customers and employees
in advertising to convey to the public that all potential customers,
regardless of their
race or color, are welcomed at Denny's. The decrees are scheduled
to expire in November 2000.

Article
6 Assure Effective Protection and Remedies

Article
6 requires States Parties to assure persons within their jurisdictions
effective protection and remedies through tribunals and other
institutions for acts of racial discrimination, including the
right to seek "just and adequate reparation or satisfaction
for any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination."

As set forth throughout
this report, U.S. law offers those affected by racial discrimination
a number of different remedies, ranging from individual suits
in the courts, to reliance on administrative procedures to criminal
prosecution of offenders.

Private suits.
The federal statutes derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1868,
including most of the laws dealing with discrimination by governments
and their officials, give the individual a "cause of action,"
i.e., a right to sue in federal court to correct the alleged
discrimination. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. sec. 1981-1985. These suits
may seek injunctive relief, which requires the governmental
unit or official to correct the conduct, and monetary relief,
which requires the payment of damages. A government official
who "knew or ought to have known" that the conduct
was unconstitutional or in violation of federal law may also
be subjected to punitive or exemplary damages. If the plaintiff
"substantially prevails" in one of these suits, the
plaintiff can also recover attorneys' fees. Private litigation
under these provisions has played a substantial role in promoting
and protecting racial equality. Non-governmental organizations
that promote civil rights are frequently involved in assisting
individual lawsuits. Further, the availability of recovery of
attorneys fees has encouraged lawyers and organizations to come
to the assistance of such individuals and provides the financial
wherewithal to pursue future cases.

Civil Suits by
the United States. In many circumstances, the Federal government
is authorized to initiate suits to enforce racial equality.
See, e.g., the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act; Titles
II, IV and VII of the Civil Rights Act; and the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act. Involvement of the government agency in such
litigation is important because these suits usually include
allegations of discriminatory "patterns or practices"
that require intensive investigation that would be difficult
for a private party to pursue. The Department of Justice also
administers the pre-clearance requirement of the Voting Rights
Act, which requires review and approval of changes in state
and local voting practices and procedures to assure that they
do not have the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the
right to vote of members of minority groups. It applies in states
and other jurisdictions which historically have denied or abridged
minority voting rights.

In addition, under
the Fair Housing Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
may initiate investigations and file complaints relating to
cases of housing discrimination. The Secretary can also commence
actions in administrative tribunals to enforce laws prohibiting
housing discrimination.

Criminal prosecution.
A number of federal statutes also provide for criminal penalties
for intentional or willful violations. In these cases, the U.S.
Attorney for the district in question will initiate an investigation,
either on the prosecutor's own initiative or on information
provided by the Civil Rights Division or by the private complaining
party.

Administrative
remedies. An entire federal agency, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC), is devoted to the enforcement
of anti-discrimination laws relating to employment. An individual
may file a complaint with the Commission, which engages in initial
investigation and attempts to provide a resolution of the matter
through conciliation. In cases where conciliation fails and
a determination is made to file a lawsuit to vindicate the public
interest, it may assume direct responsibility for prosecuting
the case. In other cases, it will issue a "right to sue"
letter, permitting the individual to pursue the claim in private
litigation.

By statute, the
EEOC has five Commissioners and a General Counsel, each of whom
is appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed
by the Senate. With its headquarters in Washington, DC, the
EEOC operates approximately fifty field offices nationwide,
including district, area and local offices. Each of these field
offices has an enforcement staff responsible for accepting charges
of discrimination from the public, investigating the charges,
and attempting conciliation and mediation. Each district and
most area offices also have a legal unit, responsible for providing
legal advice to the enforcement staff and bringing lawsuits
in federal court to enforce Title VII.

In addition to enforcement
efforts through the administrative process and litigation, the
EEOC enforces Title VII though various other means. For instance,
the EEOC issues procedural regulations implementing Title VII,
requires employers to post notices summarizing the requirements
of Title VII, and requires large employers to file reports on
the relationship of minority workers to the employer's total
workforce in specified job categories.

The EEOC recently
has been able to implement significant changes in the pursuit
of ending race discrimination. The EEOC has increased its staff
of investigators and attorneys and has modernized its technology.
In addition, the EEOC has developed a comprehensive strategic
enforcement model to reduce the backlog of charges, increase
the number of charges resolved through mediation, develop closer
ties with its stakeholders in local communities, and increase
public awareness of discrimination. In the arena of federal
employment, the EEOC has modified the regulation governing the
administrative complaint process, 29 C.F.R. ¤1614, to streamline
the process by eliminating unnecessary layers of review and
addressing perceptions of unfairness. The most significant change
is the transfer of authority to issue a final decision on discrimination
complaints from the agency charged with discrimination to the
EEOC.

Since
its creation in 1965, the EEOC (and state and local fair employment
practice agencies, known as FEPAs) have received approximately
1.2 million charges of discrimination based on race and approximately
275,000 charges of discrimination based on national origin. In
Fiscal Year 1999, the EEOC and the FEPAs received approximately
50,000 charges of discrimination based on race and approximately
13,000 charges of discrimination based on national origin. Since
1965, the EEOC and the FEPAs have recovered more than $2.2 billion
in monetary damages through voluntary settlement or conciliation
during the administrative process on behalf of victims of discrimination.
In 1999 alone, the EEOC recovered over $210 million in monetary
damages in the administrative process. The EEOC also has initiated
lawsuits based on many meritorious charges that were not resolved
in the administrative process, recovering over $8.5 million in
1999. Over the past ten years, the EEOC has filed 866 lawsuits
alleging discrimination based on race and 242 lawsuits alleging
discrimination based on national origin. In many cases, the EEOC
secures other valuable relief in addition to monetary damages,
such as reinstatement of wrongfully discharged employees, court-ordered
training in the equal employment opportunity laws, the development
of written equal employment opportunity policies, and court orders
prohibiting specific discriminatory practices. Taken together,
the monetary and non-monetary relief serve the dual purpose of
compensating victims of discrimination and preventing similar
forms of discrimination from recurring in the future.

Other federal agencies
also play important roles in enforcing civil rights and equal
protection:

At the Department
of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, individuals
may file complaints if they believe they have been discriminated
against by federal contractors or subcontractors, and the Office
itself may conduct compliance investigations to determine whether
contractors are complying with Executive Order 11246's non-discrimination
and affirmative action obligations. Complaints may also be filed
by organizations on behalf of the person or persons affected.
Other departments administer laws requiring recipients of federal
financial assistance to provide equal opportunity for participants
of programs that receive the federal financial assistance.

As discussed earlier,
the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) bears
primary responsibility for enforcing laws prohibiting discrimination
in educational programs and activities receiving federal financial
assistance. But while a large share of OCR's work is enforcement,
OCR also issues national policy statements that define to the
nation-at-large the scope of legal requirements to eliminate
racial barriers to equal educational opportunity. These policies
address many key, sometimes controversial issues, including:

Educational Opportunity
for English Language Learners. OCR requires school districts
to ensure equal educational opportunity to English language
learners. Districts are required to take affirmative steps to
provide equal educational opportunity where the inability to
speak and understand the English language excludes national
origin minority group children from effective participation
in the district's educational program. The Supreme Court in
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974) upheld OCR's policy
that requires school districts to ensure that language barriers
do not exclude English language learners from effective participation
in their programs.

Race Based Financial
Assistance. OCR's policy guidance on race based financial
assistance sets forth five principles that satisfy the requirements
of Title VI. These principles provide that:

1. A
college may make awards of financial aid to disadvantaged students
without regard to race or national origin even if that means
that such awards go disproportionately to minority students.

2. A
college may award financial aid on the basis of race or national
origin if the aid is awarded under a federal statute that authorizes
the use of race or national origin.

3. A
college may award financial aid on the basis of race or national
origin if the aid is necessary to overcome the effects of past
discrimination. A finding of discrimination may be made by a
court or administrative body, and may also be made by a State
or local legislative body, as long as the legislature has a
strong basis in evidence identifying discrimination within its
jurisdiction for which that remedial action is necessary. In
addition, a college may voluntarily take action to remedy its
past discrimination where it has a strong basis in evidence
for concluding the action is necessary to redress its past discrimination
and its financial aid program is narrowly tailored to that purpose.

4. A
college may promote its First Amendment interest in diversity
by weighing many factors -- including race and national origin
and its efforts to attract and retain a student population with
different experiences, opinions, backgrounds, and cultures --
provided that the use of race or national origin is consistent
with the constitutional standards reflected in Title VI, i.e.,
that it is a narrowly tailored means of achieving the goal of
a diverse student body.

5. Title
VI does not prohibit an individual or an organization that is
not a recipient of federal financial assistance from directly
giving scholarships or other forms of financial aid to students
based on their race or nation origin. Principles 3 and 4 apply
to the use or race-targeted privately donated funds by a college
and may justify awarding these funds on the basis of race or
national origin if the college is remedying past discrimination
or attempting to achieve a diverse student body.

Racial
Harassment. OCR's policy on racial harassment
provides that a recipient of federal financial assistance violates
Title VI if 1) an official representative of a recipient treats
someone differently in a way that interferes with or limits the
ability of the student to participate in or benefit from the recipients'
program; 2) the different treatment occurred in the course of
the official or representative's assigned duties or responsibilities,
and 3) the different treatment was based on race, color, or national
origin, and there was no legitimate nondiscriminatory non-pretextual
basis for the different treatment. An official representative
will also be in violation of Title VI if his or her actions establish
or contributes to a "racially hostile environment" (1)
when the recipient had actual or constructive notice of a racially
hostile environment and (2) a racially hostile environment existed,
and (3) the recipient failed to respond adequately to redress
the racially hostile environment.

U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights Oversight. In addition to institutions devoted
to law enforcement, other bodies are involved in making policy
recommendations to improve the protection of the rights of minorities.
The Civil Rights Commission conducts studies and makes recommendations
in this regard, and it receives communications from individuals
and groups about alleged discrimination.

Further, through
fifty-one State Advisory Committees, including the District
of Columbia, the Civil Rights Commission receives information
on civil rights issues in the states. Through the Commission's
regional directors, the Committees hold regular meetings, cooperate
on race-related projects, and submit findings to the Commission
on civil rights issues that have regional importance. From time
to time, the Commission may recommend specific projects to be
undertaken.

Equal
opportunity officers. Another approach to protecting
individuals is the requirement that many larger employers designate
an "equal opportunity officer" within their organization,
whose responsibility is to receive and respond to complaints about
employment discrimination within the firm. In effect, this requirement
provides an internal advocate within the firm for protection of
the rights secured by this Convention. The equal opportunity officers
may make recommendations to prevent discriminatory practices,
as well as to remedy instances that have occurred. They are not,
strictly speaking, "enforcement" officers, but have
had a significant impact on realization of the goals of non-discrimination.

Article
7 Adopt Measures

Article 7
requires States Parties to adopt measures in the fields of teaching,
education, culture and information to combat racial discrimination
and to promote racial and ethnic tolerance and friendship among
nations and groups, and to propagate the purposes and principles
of the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, and this Convention.

The President's
Initiative on Race actively educated the American people about
the role of race in our nation's history and its current impact
on our society. From the Initiative on Race, several publications
were produced and widely disseminated to community groups, educational
institutions, public officials and individuals in order to provide
a more accurate picture of the nature of racial issues.

"Changing America:
Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being by Race and Hispanic
Origin" documents current differences in key indicators
of well-being: education, labor markets, economic status, health,
crime and criminal justice, and housing and neighborhoods. The
information in this publication provides a factual base on which
to build dialogue about race.

"Pathways to
One America in the 21st Century: Promising Practices for Racial
Reconciliation" profiles community-based organizations
focused on furthering racial reconciliation in a variety of
fields. This publication is designed to be a reference tool
to be used by Americans who wish to work in partnership with
others working to heal racial barriers and close opportunity
gaps.

The "One America
Dialogue Guide" is a step-by-step educational resource
on ways to organize and conduct a cross-cultural dialogue in
one's own community.

"One America
in the 21st Century: Forging a New Future" is the final
report to President Clinton by the Advisory Board to the President's
Initiative on Race. This comprehensive document is an account
of the Advisory Board's fifteen-month examination of race relations
in the United States. By exploring the historical basis for
existing perceptions and misperceptions of race in America,
this report creates a social context for productive dialogue
on how to build One America. The report also makes specific
recommendations on how the government, the corporate community,
non-governmental organizations and private citizens can take
active steps to promote racial reconciliation.

All four publications
are available in print and may be viewed and printed from the
White House website http://www.whitehouse.gov.

The President's
Initiative for One America continues to further the President's
goals of educating the American public about race. In October
2000, the Initiative for One America and the Department of Education
will organize the third annual Campus Week of Dialogue. This
year's theme: "Many Paths, One Journey: Building One America"
reflects the mission of educating students on diversity-related
issues and providing all students the opportunity to succeed
in a multi-racial society.

The United States
also promotes the goals of Article 7 globally through the U.S.
Department of State, particularly the U.S. Information Service.
Media like World Net and Voice of America are used to broadcast
news and information programs on rule of law, tolerance and
other topics related to combating racism and to promote tolerance.
These outlets give overseas audiences direct access to experts
and policy makers in the United States concerned with issues
related to race.

The United States
also sends speakers to overseas missions to foster discussion
on issues important to multi-cultural societies. Similarly,
the State Department's Office of Public Diplomacy distributes
publications to target organizations ranging from host country
governments to local media and civil society groups such as
NGOs.

Moreover, the United
States promotes the interests identified by Article 7 through
various professional and education exchange programs. Through
the Professionals in Residence program, the Department of State
sends specialists to non-academic institutions such as foreign
media organizations and government ministries to promote the
interests identified in Article 7. The United States is also
active in CIVITAS, an international consortium for civic education
which maintains a worldwide network devoted to promoting informed
and responsible citizenship. In addition, the United States
devotes substantial resources to the Fulbright Scholar Program,
providing enhanced educational opportunities to U.S. and foreign
scholars through grants and fellowships, and the International
Visitors Program, which brings foreign judges, lawyers, NGO
leaders and teachers to the United States for study tours and
professional conferences.

In the fall of 1997,
President Clinton identified the prevention and prosecution
of hate crimes as a priority issue for the nation and announced
the creation of a national initiative to examine the current
state of race relations in America. In response, the Attorney
General established a Hate Crime Working Group consisting of
staff from all Justice Department agencies. A major initiative
of the Hate Crime Working group is to expand and improve hate
and bias crime data collection within the Department of Justice.

Through its Office
of Victims of Crime (OVC), the Department of Justice has taken
steps to adopt measures to combat discrimination and to promote
understanding among racial and ethnic groups. This is evidenced
through various measures and programs that are OVC funded

In early 1998, OVC
coordinated with the Bureau of Justice Statistics to develop
a survey instrument to identify the number of Victims of Crime
Act funded victim assistance programs that serve hate and bias
crime victims. OVC conducted this informal survey in May, 1999.

OVC provides funding
to the National Victim Assistance Academy which conducts annual
training sessions at five different locations throughout the
United States. Each year, the Academy reaches over 250 participants
comprised of state and federal personnel that work with crime
victims. There is a formal curriculum which includes a chapter
on hate and bias crime.

OVC, in conjunction
with the Bureau of Justice Administration, and the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, developed an eleven page brochure
entitled Responding to Hate Crimes: A Police Officer's Guide
to Investigation and Prevention. The brochure teaches law
enforcement officers how to identify and respond to hate crimes.
This grant project printed 450,000 copies of the brochure which
are anticipated for distribution to law enforcement agencies
nationwide.

OVC plays a major
role in the Justice Department Hate Crime Working Group's Hate
Crime Training for Law Enforcement. OVC assisted in development
of four training manuals and a student workbook. OVC assisted
in the development and delivery of special training for local
trainers and to all of the states, who in turn, are now reaching
out to the local law enforcement agencies to provide training
on responding to hate crime. Hundreds of local police departments
have received this training in the last year.

As opportunities
present themselves OVC provides training on hate crime, hate
crime victims' needs, cultural awareness, and, effective responses
to hate crime. This training has been provided at several national,
and local conferences and symposia reaching thousands of victim
service providers.

OVC also provides
grant funding to such non profit organizations as the National
Multi-Cultural Institute which conducts training on cultural
sensitivity in dealing with crime victims. Approximately 150
people have been trained this year. Additional training sessions
are planned.

The Department of
Interior operates several programs that promote education and
awareness of diverse students to the fields of science and natural
resources. For instance, at Chamizal National Memorial, Texas,
the National Park Service sponsors special programs and activities
to broaden understanding and to encourage perpetuation of cultural
heritages in the performing and graphic arts.

The
Department of Interior has also begun the Underground Railroad
Program nationwide. This relatively new program is in the process
of identifying hundreds of key people and places in the US, Canada,
and Mexico associated with the network of individuals who guaranteed
the safety of escaped slaves during the 19th Century abolitionist
movement. Each person and site selected as part of this program
will be interpreted in terms of the acts of bravery an suffering
in the quest for freedom for all.

D. Conclusion

Over
the years, the United States has worked hard to overcome a legacy
of racism and racial discrimination, and it has done so with
substantial successes. Nevertheless, significant obstacles remain.
But, as a vibrant, multi-cultural democracy, the United States
-- at all levels of government and civil society -- continually
reexamines and reevaluates its successes and failures, having
the elimination of racism and racial discrimination as its ultimate
goal. The United States looks forward to discussing its experiences
and this report with the Committee.

_____________1. For ease of reference this report will use
the terms for racial and ethnic categories used by the U.S. Census Bureau.

2. The classification of the population by race
and ethnicity is based on a statistical standard issued by the U.S. Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) in 1977. OMB issued a revised standard in 1997.
Under the revised standard, individuals may report more than one race; the Asian
and Pacific Islander category is divided into two categories; and there are
changes in terminology. The five racial categories are: White, Black or African
American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander. The two ethnic categories are Hispanic or Latino and
Not Hispanic or Latino. Data on the population by race and ethnicity from the
2000 census will reflect the 1997 standard and will become available in 2001.

3.
Since the population of Hispanic origin may be of any race, the four minority
groups are not mutually exclusive. In 1999, 2.8 million individuals were classified
in two minority groups, including 1.8 million Black and Hispanic; 0.4 million
American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut, and Hispanic; and 0.6 million Asian and
Pacific Islander and Hispanic.

4.
Because the United States uses an acknowledgment process through which Native
American tribes are given federal recognition (making them eligible to receive
services and benefits provided to Native Americans), this figure may not reflect
the number of people of Native American ancestry who do not belong to a federally
recognized tribe.